It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Ted Cruz run for president?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Really.

You have ALL these polls saying Congresses approval rating is at an all time low. Presidential approval rating at an all time low.

WHY are these people even giving their opinion on it, when they are unwilling to change how things are done?

....They must love the abuse.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Stockholm Syndrome.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 




I know...I shouldn't laugh.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."


When I look at that again, I still can't agree. It's not defining anything as much as codifying the lack of real definition or meaning. That didn't narrow anything down as much as just make official the lack of any true qualification or point of disqualification. Can you read that and tell me 100% certain just where the line IS to say you are NOT qualified? After all, the clause was one of restriction, not inclusion for it's purpose and wording. It's being taken as the opposite now to carry the widest possible definition.

I don't think it should be eased up or made exception to. Not that one. That office had a couple unique provisions attached to it and for VERY good reason. No other *SINGLE* man in the nation wields the power of a President. No other man in our system can, 100% and by himself, issue orders that result in changed lives and/or the deaths of dozens to thousands or more. The provisions restricting that one office the way it is now are not enough, if anything....they are sure not too much, IMO. Not with the power that one man (whomever it is) holds.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I see the humor in it too I can't help it if I have a more than healthy dose of cynical humor, I think it comes with having a functioning brain.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
I thought it was already settled that Cruz is eligible?


ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Wolf. The big question here is whether Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen.

I spoke with several constitutional law experts about this today. And all of them believe that Cruz is. But it's important to know the Constitution doesn't define who is a natural-born citizen. And those are the only people eligible to run for president. Also I should add the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. (The Situation Room, August 13, 2013)


Link

I don't think there's anymore to this than there was to Obama's. Good grief here we go again.


The Supreme Court DID rule on this issue: Minor vs. Happersett. It's never been overturned

www.freerepublic.com...

Also, although I am so very sick and frickin tired of repeating this all over the internet, do spend some time at this ATTORNEY'S blogspot. He has article after article about the 'natural born citizen' issue:

puzo1.blogspot.com...

Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen. Jindal and Rubio are NOT natural born citizens. Not sure about Obama--who is his daddy and/or where was he born?

I read an article earlier today wherein CNN decided that precedent had been set when George Romney ran for President in 1968. There were people complaining about it back then. I and many others are fed up with creeps wiping their butts on the Constitution...not to mention, two wrongs do not a right make!!! The Constitution is supposed to be the Law of the Land. What's the point of being a nation of laws if we're not going to follow them???

And I don't for one minute believe that all these pro-Cruz, pro-Rubio, pro-Jindal posts are from 'everyday, regular Americans'! Imo, they are from those with an agenda and/or by those paid to post--paid by those with an agenda...



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The rule was established to make sure the highest office wasn't open to foreign interest corruption.


Who needs foreign interest, hey?



I wonder how many Presidents have been "bought" with influence. I would think the majority.

Would be easier to figure out who hasn't....maybe.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."


When I look at that again, I still can't agree. It's not defining anything as much as codifying the lack of real definition or meaning. That didn't narrow anything down as much as just make official the lack of any true qualification or point of disqualification. Can you read that and tell me 100% certain just where the line IS to say you are NOT qualified? After all, the clause was one of restriction, not inclusion for it's purpose and wording. It's being taken as the opposite now to carry the widest possible definition.

I don't think it should be eased up or made exception to. Not that one. That office had a couple unique provisions attached to it and for VERY good reason. No other *SINGLE* man in the nation wields the power of a President. No other man in our system can, 100% and by himself, issue orders that result in changed lives and/or the deaths of dozens to thousands or more. The provisions restricting that one office the way it is now are not enough, if anything....they are sure not too much, IMO. Not with the power that one man (whomever it is) holds.

The whole thing needs to be simply rewritten, thought out, and with future possibilities in mind.
What happens in like 300 years when people are born, live, and "die" purely as online entities, what about cyborgs, implanted clones, etc etc etc.
A bunch of things we can't even fathom today. the rules need to be clear, but also encompassing for any oddness the future may toss at us.

How deep does America go? maybe in 500 years, people will be living in megastructures near the core of the earth, or in space stations floating high above, etc.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Habit4ming
 





And I don't for one minute believe that all these pro-Cruz, pro-Rubio, pro-Jindal posts are from 'everyday, regular Americans'! Imo, they are from those with an agenda and/or by those paid to post--paid by those with an agenda...


That wouldn't be me, I can't stand the Republicans or Democrats at the moment. But that's no reason for me to exercise integrity only when it suits me. I can't stand Ted Cruz however I have no issue with him running for President that's what my vote is for.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Habit4ming

Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen. Jindal and Rubio are NOT natural born citizens. Not sure about Obama--who is his daddy and/or where was he born?

And I don't for one minute believe that all these pro-Cruz, pro-Rubio, pro-Jindal posts are from 'everyday, regular Americans'! Imo, they are from those with an agenda and/or by those paid to post--paid by those with an agenda...


Hence the reason for this thread. I don't believe he is a natural born citizen either and should not be eligible to be president. I'd like to see this settled now instead of during an election.



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


I am so curious I have to ask this question.

It seems Cruz was born in Canada and is a Canadian citizen; which he plans to renounce.
It also seems he is an American citizen by vertue of his mother being an American citizen.
If his father is from Cuba, or some where, would he not also be a Cuban citizen. What does he do about that?

The constitution does not make any reference to the citizenship of a presidential candidates parents or ancestry, so the phrase "natural born" can only pertain to the candidate themselves and I would think it "implies" being born here.
Of course, we may need to wait to get a "definative answer" fro Donald trump nad Orley Tiez.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

Bump. Important.

F&S&



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
It doesn't matter, he has no shot.. He is out there draw the political fire from the left while they prep the real candidate.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
regardless of politics I can't think of a more annoying face to look at.

If America elects ted I'm losing hope in it. I will turn in the last part of myself that gives a damn.

He has no chance of winning the "I want to have a beer with him" Republican voters, if he does I give up.
edit on 03pm12pm312015-03-22T12:56:07-05:0012America/Chicago by mahatche because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
It doesn't matter, he has no shot.. He is out there draw the political fire from the left while they prep the real candidate.


probably correct. He's playing the bachmann role.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
From what I have read, the Supreme Court has never settled these questions and doubts. It is time they did so.

By today's rules, an illegal immigrant can slip into the US and have her baby and that baby is a natural born citizen of the US. Even if he/she is raised during his early years in Mexico and can barely speak English, he/she is still considered a naturalized US citizen.

He/She could run for President! And if all Hispanics in the country (who, BTW, are the #1 minority group now) voted for him/her, we would be fundamentally transformed for sure.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Really? No one has quoted the legal text pertaining to this? It should be a simple matter to determine whether or not both parents have to be US citizens in order for a child born overseas to be a natural-born citizen. Then just a quick peek at that birth certificate and he's golden.

Someone less lazy than I am on a Sunday afternoon should look that up and get back to us.
edit on 22-3-2015 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: sonnny1
reply to post by Kali74
 




Its really a joke, hey?

Well..... Im going to vote independent. If only everyone voted this way. Hillary? Nope. Biden? Nope. Cruz? Nope. I just cant see any of these "do nothings", politically influenced, bought and paid for Politicians fixing anything. For those who sit and gripe about how bad you have it? Change it.



I'd give anything for a year where people get over their fear of the other side winnings long enough to elect someone from a third party.

I've been casting strategic votes for the third party person I think is most likely to get 1% of the vote. I knew Gary Johnson wouldn't win, and he wasn't even my favorite candidate, I just want a third party voice. A third party victory will do his/her best to create a good legacy.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Actually the Supreme Court did answer the question in Perkins v. Elg. There was a child born to Swedish immigrants on US soil. The family then moved back to Sweden when she was still a child. She then lived in Sweden until after the age of 18. When she tried to move back to the US he citizenship was contested. The SCOTUS then decided that not only was she still a US citizen but she could even run for President if she wanted.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: queenofswords

Actually the Supreme Court did answer the question in Perkins v. Elg. There was a child born to Swedish immigrants on US soil. The family then moved back to Sweden when she was still a child. She then lived in Sweden until after the age of 18. When she tried to move back to the US he citizenship was contested. The SCOTUS then decided that not only was she still a US citizen but she could even run for President if she wanted.


Thank you for that info. Currently, there is no dispute that when a child is born on U.S. soil, he/she is a citizen.

I believe there is a bill in congress right now trying to eliminate the "anchor baby" law. I agree that it should be done away with, and hope this bill passes.

The disputes in the past that I think need to be clarified are those where the child was not born on U.S. soil, but have all these extenuating situations. Time to tighten up and narrow down the rules, imo.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join