Thread: Neither Cruz nor Rubio are Natural Born citizens

MW, maybe you should take a read. Quoted from your own linked source from the First Congress:

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the Unites States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Notice the keyword is *citizens*. Its plural. SCOTUS ruling many times has said every letter and symbol must have a meaning which also means lack of one also has a clear meaning. This means clearly that one must be born to TWO US Citizen parents... a mother and a father. One parent being a citizen does NOT qualify to award natural born citizenship. There is absolutely no debate to this unless trying to challenge the SCOTUS's own rulings in the past and multiple rulings. Same rulings that have upheld things like the second amendment as we currently use it.

On Obama, he falls into the same category as well. Worse still the First Congress used the phrase "who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States " which implies that just because someone is born on US soil that does NOT mean they are also within the US Jurisdiction. This means being born on US soil means nothing without the jurisdiction. Now we go back to the above where to be a NBC one must have 2 US citizen parents as again the only understanding of what a NBC is.

There is no debate on this, no argument, no legitimate claim. Its all bogus lies about those trying to warp our Constitution and laws for their own benefit.

Try and argue how I could be possibly misinterpreting this. I doubt you can.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

MW, maybe you should take a read. Quoted from your own linked source from the First Congress:

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the Unites States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Notice the keyword is *citizens*. Its plural. SCOTUS ruling many times has said every letter and symbol must have a meaning which also means lack of one also has a clear meaning. This means clearly that one must be born to TWO US Citizen parents... a mother and a father. One parent being a citizen does NOT qualify to award natural born citizenship. There is absolutely no debate to this unless trying to challenge the SCOTUS's own rulings in the past and multiple rulings. Same rulings that have upheld things like the second amendment as we currently use it.

On Obama, he falls into the same category as well. Worse still the First Congress used the phrase "who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States " which implies that just because someone is born on US soil that does NOT mean they are also within the US Jurisdiction. This means being born on US soil means nothing without the jurisdiction. Now we go back to the above where to be a NBC one must have 2 US citizen parents as again the only understanding of what a NBC is.

There is no debate on this, no argument, no legitimate claim. Its all bogus lies about those trying to warp our Constitution and laws for their own benefit.

Try and argue how I could be possibly misinterpreting this. I doubt you can.

Some could consider your argument as irrelevant ..... in fact some actually have. Your argument completely ignores current law. I find it difficult to debate an issue that may actually be irrelevant.

Excerpt:

All three agree on the crucial point. Under the Constitution, it does not matter whether the framing generation would have found Cruz eligible. What matters is the law today—and that law is §301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in effect when Cruz was born in 1970. It provides that “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States. . . of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States . . . for . . . not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years” is a citizen of the United States.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...gument/424104/

Americans have known for 228 years who is a natural born citizen. They made an exception in 2008 because there was no natural born citizen on the General Election ballot. I believe most Americans see the consequences of that error and will use their votes, the true power of the United States, to ensure that mistake is never repeated on any level for any reason.

A natural born citizen under Article II of the US Constitution is quite simply the mix of blood and soil, born in the United States (soil) to 2 US citizens (blood).

If you are a US citizen as a result of any item of the 14th Amendment or any section of the US Immigration and Nationality Act, then you are a citizen as a matter of law and statute, not the required mix of soil and blood.

It's very simple. In 2016, vote simple so we can take our country back and make America great again.

WHAT law states what a Natural Born Citizen is? What SCOTUS ruling states what a Natural Born Citizen is? Anything? Anything at all? There is absolutely NOTHING else out there that states otherwise. There is no other law that defines it differently or changes its meaning. There is no SCOTUS ruling on what a Natural Born Citizen is either. Not one single Immigration law that has passed has ever touched on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

Now I'll call it as I see it as I'm sick of hearing your nonsense MW. I don't see how possibly you are really on our side at ALIPAC but an obvious plant trying to stir trouble and cause someone to say something completely hateful or actually racist to try and pin us as a hate group. So much of your commentary has been half truths and from a heavy uneducated liberal standpoint and this is coming from a former Dem Voter (now independent) who had enough with our country being sold out. Your clearly not one of us and clearly a plant.

ReformUSA2012 excerpt:

Now I'll call it as I see it as I'm sick of hearing your nonsense MW. I don't see how possibly you are really on our side at ALIPAC but an obvious plant trying to stir trouble and cause someone to say something completely hateful or actually racist to try and pin us as a hate group. So much of your commentary has been half truths and from a heavy uneducated liberal standpoint and this is coming from a former Dem Voter (now independent) who had enough with our country being sold out. Your clearly not one of us and clearly a plant.

A look back at all my previous posts (going back 10 years) will clearly disprove your accusation. Just because I feel Ted Cruz would be an acceptable choice for our next president does not make me a liberal plant, uneducated, or whatever else you want to accuse me of. For the record, with the exception of some environmental issues, I am the polar opposite of what you've described and I assure you I'm no plant. I speak for myself and no one else. Why is it so hard to believe that I can support Trump and Cruz, instead of just Trump? They both, with few exceptions, agree on immigration and border security.

Natural-born mess: What would it take to kick Ted Cruz off the ballot?

Rules Review: Automatic 30 Day Suspension for Next Person that breaks a rule

I found another lawyer, philosopher, a Selwyn Duke, a lady who has done an indepth study on the Natural Born Clause in the Constitution. Her conclusions and research are here:

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...zen-explained/

Neither Cruz nor Rubio are Natural Born citizens.

2/12/16

Trump threatens to sue Cruz for 'not being a natural born citizen'

The Natural Born Citizen clause in the Constitution. If the Tea Party is the party of the Constitution, can someone in the Tea Party tell me what is going on here. I'm in a discussion with a Republican in Florida and he tells me,

"

The Republican Party only holds a primary contest. It is not the arbiter or enforcer of who is or isn’t eligible to run for President or who is or isn’t a citizen. The party has no power, whatsoever, to deny a candidate a place on the ballot, based on their citizenship eligibility, until the courts rule. I’ll repeat it so that it is clear: the party has NO POWER to make such a determination."

I don't believe this whatsoever. Aren't all citizens responsible for the Constitution? Are not primaries run by the States in collusion with the political parties? I find it laughable that the Republican Party in its convention rules can not apply the Natural Born Citizen clause to its own nominating convention rules! Mitt Romney goes out and calls Trump unfit to be the Republican nominee, but the Republican Party can't make a determination, itself, about who is and who is not a Natural Born Citizen.
I find this all very unreal! Even after the Obama birther issue, the Republican Party never expended any effort in these intervening years to seek an answer to this question but seems to bury it! And then the Republican Party, along with the Tea Party, all claim to be conservative, cry about the Rule of Law--but none of them speak to the Natural Born Citizen Clause? What the Hell is going on?


And Many people tell me we have to wait for the Supreme Court to rule on what the Natural Born Citizen clause means. If that is the case then, the principle of waiting for the Supreme Court to decide on the natural born clause, THEN, We don't know what's in the Constitution and we must wait for the Supreme Court to tell us what it means and that the Supreme Court must rule on every word in the Constitution to tell us they all mean. I can't understand the what the word "militia" means in the 2nd amendment until the Supreme Court tells me.

I believe this guy is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. If Mitt Romney can tell us all that Trump is unfit, the Republican Party itself can obey the Natural Born Citizen Clause and use it as a standard. It doesn't need the Federal Government, or the Judiciary--it has the Constitution and it can use it by itself! Can it not?