Quote from: Trip on July 28, 2013, 02:22:35 PM
Cruz unfortunately is in fact ineligible to be President due to the double whammy of being born in Alberta, Canada, and also his parents not being U.S. citizens.

However I am to the point where I'd be willing to overlook this in order to get a competent constitutionalist  in office, rather than the long line of traitors offered up by the Republicans. (and it kills me to say that)

Actually i'm thinking you're wrong on this one :) I have to be 100% sure but Ted has been looking at the eligibility question and i believe that gets beat by one if not both of them being naturalized citizens at the time of his birth. Ted believes he can get around this issue with far more Ease than Obama ever has.

I'd have to know dates and times to be sure. But his confidence in overcoming the eligibility issue suggests he knows he's good.

Also lets be frank. The GOP aint making it to 2016. The chaos that has erupted in the wake of Amash tells me the Republican party likely wont survive the YEAR at this point.

Cruz is the guy / outlook that we need.

Too bad he'll be raped by the DNC, MSM, RINO's, etc.

And we'll do jack shit.

What's the strategy to support / defend / promote Ted Cruz   ?

Zip zero nada is the answer.

Anybody here willing to do the heavy lifting ?  How do we do it  ?  I'll do some if we come up with a plan.

Othewrwise Cruz = Arpaio = Christie = Rubio = any Bush.

We're nowhere, but UN one-world BS.  End of story.

Quote from: taxed on July 28, 2013, 01:01:38 PM
I love him.  The libs will try to say he's ineligible to be President, when that time comes.  The irony.

Unfortunately, he may well be ineligible. Having said that, consider having such a strong, knowledgeable, articulate individual gain seniority in the Senate. Our history has shown, good or bad, it can be advantageous to have such an individual in a leadership position within the Congress.

Quote from: Trip on July 28, 2013, 02:22:35 PM
Cruz unfortunately is in fact ineligible to be President due to the double whammy of being born in Alberta, Canada, and also his parents not being U.S. citizens.

However I am to the point where I'd be willing to overlook this in order to get a competent constitutionalist  in office, rather than the long line of traitors offered up by the Republicans. (and it kills me to say that)

It is my understanding his mother was a US Citizen at the time of his birth. It is the liberal Republican Rubio whose parents were not citizens at the time of his birth.

Quote from: Hyperion on July 28, 2013, 06:34:40 PM
Actually i'm thinking you're wrong on this one :) I have to be 100% sure but Ted has been looking at the eligibility question and i believe that gets beat by one if not both of them being naturalized citizens at the time of his birth. Ted believes he can get around this issue with far more Ease than Obama ever has.

I'd have to know dates and times to be sure. But his confidence in overcoming the eligibility issue suggests he knows he's good.

Also lets be frank. The GOP aint making it to 2016. The chaos that has erupted in the wake of Amash tells me the Republican party likely wont survive the YEAR at this point.

I've not seen any evidence of Cruz having "confidence" in regards to eligibility issues,  or that he has been "looking at eligibility issues",  and I am  curious if you're asserting some sort of insider information on this.

The idea that Cruz might be asserting any sort of confidence in this matter, can only come from a disregard for this country's principles and Constitution, and deliberate distortion of the Article II natural born citizen requirement, which truly saddens me.   I have volumes of historic information and a half dozen direct supreme court references on this.   

Cruz's mother was born in Delaware and born an American citizens.  However unfortunately Ted Cruz was born in Alberta Canada in 1970, and his father was not a naturalized citizen until 2005. 

This means that Ted Cruz was not a Born Citizen of the United States, via the corruption of the 14th amendment and birth on U.S. soil, and could not be a Natural Born Citizen as a result of being born with his father's allegiance to Cuba, as well as being born on Canadian soil, therefore having three allegiances upon birth, and not just one - not any sort of natural born citizen of these United States.


As voiced by the July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay  to George Washington, which led to the requirement being included in the Constitution,  the purpose of the NBC requirement is to prohibit foreign influence on the office of President, and not to invite that influence with numerous foreign allegiances in a candidate.

Quote from: Bronx on July 28, 2013, 12:39:16 PM
I'm with you all the way Ted. I like being part of the "Professional Right". Tea anyone....?

Ted Cruz: Mainstream Media Like 'Timid,' 'House-Trained' Republicans

"There are a lot of Democrats and folks in the media who like their Republicans timid and house-trained to just sit quietly in the corner, to accept losing, and to stand for nothing," Cruz said on Sean Hannity's radio show. Cruz said Americans are fed up with such Republicans who are no different from Democrats and offer no alternative.

READ MORE.......

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/26/Ted-Cruz-Mainstream-Media-Like-Timid-House-Trained-Republicans

I agree. Rubicon is a great example. He wanted to be petted by the media and his dem friends by  pushing amnesty.

I believe it's safe to say that we can all agree that Natural Born, would mean being born of two citizens on US soil, correct?

Allow me to play Devils Advocate for a moment and raise some questions.

Where in any writings did the Founders define "Natural Born"? In almost everything they did, they had documentation to back it up, that is, all but this, they never actually defined "Natural Born", allowing for interpretation and bastardization.

This was my argument with Trip about McCain, but I had to stop because my damned heart was acting up.
Not  that I want to try and defend Johnny, but if a Marxist can hide his records proving he is not a US citizen, why can't a Canadian born of an American citizen and naturalized under our laws be interpreted as 'Natural Born"?

I wish the Founders had been more specific on the term, knowing that linguistically, language changes, e.g. gay means fag, liberal has come to mean communist, or rather interchangeable etc.

Solar,

There's a reason that the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen".  It was deliberately chosen as a qualification for President, not only for real effect upon that office, but also because it is a term of art which s, by definition, outside of man-made Positive Law, and in the realm of Natural Law.

People look at it as if it were some sort of convoluted contrivance, with no real meaning, but the fact is a natural born citizen is nothing more than a citizenship promoted by the most common means that citizenship is promoted in a society,  by birth from  the members of that society, and being born into that society, thereby not possibly being a member of any other society but this one. 

It's a little known fact that we had a treaty with the French under the Articles of Confederation involving arms and supplies, and the treaty stipulated that the persons from each side responsible for exercise of that trade must be a natural born citizen.   Why this would matter is that the person would be inherently a member of that country, France or the United States, and not owing allegiance to some other country.. like the British, and engage in corrupt trade under the terms of the treaty.

The idea that anyone born on American a country's soil might be a natural born citizen, is actually the result of feudal dictate of the British Crown, and is recorded by the British Jurist, William Blackstone, as being progressively  expanded by the Crown over time. 

This "natural born subject", in the terms of feudal law, was "natural" in so far as the belief that it was natural condition for everyone to born immediately into a condition of subservience, and obligation  to authority.  That mere birth on the British soil enjoined a form of naturalization, choice or not, and a  "Perpetual Allegiance", an involuntary servitude that could not be severed by anything but death.

We specifically fought two wars to reject feudal nobelesse oblige, deny that doctrine of Perpetual Allegiance, and to establish individual freedoms: the Revolutionary War and War of 1812.   The idea of mere birth on U.S soil being a NBC not only conflicts with our country's philosophy of natural law individual freedoms, but also abrogates the federal governments responsibility to engage a two-way responsibility that is allegiance to the state, a.k.a citizenship.

Here is something else you may find of interest, and with lots of references: 

"Natural Born Defined" (PDF)

Quote from: Solar on July 29, 2013, 06:39:30 AM
I believe it's safe to say that we can all agree that Natural Born, would mean being born of two citizens on US soil, correct?

It's supposed to, or the whole context of allegiance makes no sense.

But it's clear that progressives want it to mean whatever fits their candidate.

Somebody should file suit just for the purpose of settling the meaning, once and for all.

Quote from: Trip on July 29, 2013, 08:53:01 AM
Solar,

There's a reason that the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen".  It was deliberately chosen as a qualification for President, not only for real effect upon that office, but also because it is a term of art which s, by definition, outside of man-made Positive Law, and in the realm of Natural Law.

People look at it as if it were some sort of convoluted contrivance, with no real meaning, but the fact is a natural born citizen is nothing more than a citizenship promoted by the most common means that citizenship is promoted in a society,  by birth from  the members of that society, and being born into that society, thereby not possibly being a member of any other society but this one. 

It's a little known fact that we had a treaty with the French under the Articles of Confederation involving arms and supplies, and the treaty stipulated that the persons from each side responsible for exercise of that trade must be a natural born citizen.   Why this would matter is that the person would be inherently a member of that country, France or the United States, and not owing allegiance to some other country.. like the British, and engage in corrupt trade under the terms of the treaty.

The idea that anyone born on American a country's soil might be a natural born citizen, is actually the result of feudal dictate of the British Crown, and is recorded by the British Jurist, William Blackstone, as being progressively  expanded by the Crown over time. 

This "natural born subject", in the terms of feudal law, was "natural" in so far as the belief that it was natural condition for everyone to born immediately into a condition of subservience, and obligation  to authority.  That mere birth on the British soil enjoined a form of naturalization, choice or not, and a  "Perpetual Allegiance", an involuntary servitude that could not be severed by anything but death.

We specifically fought two wars to reject feudal nobelesse oblige, deny that doctrine of Perpetual Allegiance, and to establish individual freedoms: the Revolutionary War and War of 1812.   The idea of mere birth on U.S soil being a NBC not only conflicts with our country's philosophy of natural law individual freedoms, but also abrogates the federal governments responsibility to engage a two-way responsibility that is allegiance to the state, a.k.a citizenship.

Here is something else you may find of interest, and with lots of references: 

"Natural Born Defined" (PDF)

Keep in mind, I'm playing Devils advocate here, because the left at some point is going to challenge the issue.

I get it and agree, but it was never actually codified into law, just a lot of references as to it's meaning.
I want to see an actual definition, not a series of references alluding to what is considered obvious.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
As Andy points out below, it's not settled law, I believe it needs to be settled before it actually becomes an issue, Hussein was bad enough, with his sealing all of his historical records that could prove he is not a citizen, but I digress, lets settle it once and for all, Congress has sidestepped the issue for far too long.

Quote from: Solar on July 29, 2013, 01:07:17 PM
Keep in mind, I'm playing Devils advocate here, because the left at some point is going to challenge the issue.

I get it and agree, but it was never actually codified into law, just a lot of references as to it's meaning.
I want to see an actual definition, not a series of references alluding to what is considered obvious.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
As Andy points out below, it's not settled law, I believe it needs to be settled before it actually becomes an issue, Hussein was bad enough, with his sealing all of his historical records that could prove he is not a citizen, but I digress, lets settle it once and for all, Congress has sidestepped the issue for far too long.

What I was trying to distinguish is "natural born citizen" is not a matter of law to settle, but only to recognize.  There have been attempts to alter by statute the definition of natural born citizen, the most recent immediately before the 2008 election, to declare those born overseas to parents serving in the military to be natural born citizens, which is an illegitimate use of the legislative authority.  Again, natural born citizen originates outside of Positive man-made law.

But here are some facts:

1)    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814): Chief Justice John Marshall references Vattel's work Laws of Nations and recgnizes the natives  to be those born in a country of parents who are citizens, specifically, " The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. "

2)  Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): Justice Daniel concurring, cited and quoted from Vattel and The Law of Nations:

• "'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .'"
  

3) Rep. John Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866:   "I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . " Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866).

4) Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872): In explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," said in dicta that the clause "was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875): "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80. Minor did not cite Vattel but as can be seen the Court's definition of a "citizen" and a "natural born Citizen" are taken directly out of Vattel's Section 212.

6)   Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884): "The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306... Subject to the jurisdiction thereof... is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized... Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.... To be a citizen of the United States is a political privilege which no one, not born to, can assume without its consent in some form."

7)  United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

8) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): Chief Justice Horace Gray cites the  Minor v Happersett definition of natural born citizen being born in a country of parents who were its citizens, and nowhere refutes, or undermines that definition.   Hence, Wong did not change the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen."

By the Article II "natural born" requirement, it is clear that the founders believed the offices of President and Vice President, of all the offices created by the Constitution,  were the most vulnerable to foreign influence, as indeed these have unilateral, and even 'dictatorial' powers.