Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 53
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: TED CRUZ CAMPAIGN HIT AGAIN, NEW 'BIRTHER' LAWSUIT FILED IN NEW YORK

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #41
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Quote Originally Posted by pkskyali View Post
    Why don't you quote this act directly or provide a link to the text of the act which explains it.
    I have on several previous occasions. However, once again I'll provide the necessary information that identifies Ted Cruz as a natural born citizen.

    Okay, first we must define a natural born citizen. Are we in agreement that a natural born citizen acquires citizenship immediately upon birth vice having to go through the naturalization process? We know that Ted Cruz never had to apply for citizenship through naturalization, which means he immediately gained citizenship upon birth.

    Excerpt:

    Bases for Citizenship: Birth, Blood, or Naturalization

    The U.S. recognizes citizenship according to two fundamental principles: jus soli (right of birthplace), and jus sanguinis (right of blood). Under jus soli, a person receives American citizenship by virtue of being born in the United States. By contrast, jus sanguinis confers citizenship on those born to at least one U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. A person who does not qualify under either of these principles may seek U.S. citizenship through the process of naturalization.
    -

    See more at: http://immigration.findlaw.com/citiz....ObULaCP0.dpuf

    Excerpt:

    In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:​

    The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and​

    The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision.​ [2]


    https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/H...-Chapter3.html


    Okay, it's a well known and documented fact that Ted Cruz's mother is (and was) a U.S. citizen that met the requirements as set forth above, so by blood, the citizenship of his mother immediately conferred citizenship upon him. Ted DID NOT acquire citizenship through the naturalization process, but DID acquire citizenship through birth.

    Now that we've established that Ted is a U.S citizen, we'll move on to identify him as a natural born citizen.

    Excerpt:

    While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (188. and enactments of the First Congress.4×4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (188.Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
    http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/

    As we've already established, Ted Cruz was a U.S. citizen upon birth.

    Excerpt:

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”


    http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

    Cruz's father was a legal resident of the United States prior to his birth and his mother, a U.S. Citizen, had met the residency requirements.

    Excerpt:

    Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
    http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


    Natural born citizen

    A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States. Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII.
    Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen." One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents
    .


    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen

    Excerpt:

    Jonathan Adler, who teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at Case Western University School of Law, writes in the Washington Post:

    Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was a U.S. citizen. His father, a Cuban, was not. Under U.S. law, the fact that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother makes him a citizen from birth. In other words, he is a “natural born citizen” (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is constitutionally eligible.


    Adler cites in his piece an article by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, “On The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen,” in the Harvard Law Review Forum, which states:

    All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

    While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. . .


    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...#ixzz40rQBJbjS

    Excerpt:

    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/













    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #42
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Under the Constitution, it does not matter whether the framing generation would have found Cruz eligible.
    So under this new theory, "it does not matter", that Cruz is ineligible under Article II, US Constitution.



    I think that's: Checkmate.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #43
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    So under this new theory, "it does not matter", that Cruz is ineligible under Article II, US Constitution.



    I think that's: Checkmate.
    "Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790."

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #44
    Senior Member MontereySherry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,370
    I have always said this is a complicated issue. I knew that in our past history that foreign born woman automatically became a citizen upon marrying a U.S. citizen. Men in America's history decided the nationality/citizenship while the race was decided by the mother. I found the following article to be very interesting when wondering how many presidents in our history actually had foreign born parents.

    The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents

    By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    Published: February 14, 2011
    Revised: February 16, 2011

    A famous Holmesian dictum provides that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921) (Holmes, J.). There have been 43 Americans that have served as President (not including Barack Obama). Ten were born before 1787. Until Martin Van Buren (who was born in 1782 or six years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence) became President in 1837 (making him the 8th president), all the Presidents had been born before 1776 to parents who, undoubtedly, at the time considered themselves to be loyal subjects of one of the British Kings. The president following Van Buren, William H. Harrison (the 9th president), was also born before 1776 to parents who were British “natural born subjects.” All Presidents born before July 4, 1776, were born British “natural born subjects.” Those early presidents were naturalized to become “Citizens of the United States” through the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. These presidents included Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, and Harrison. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, allowing anyone who was a “Citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President, grandfathered these presidents to be eligible. All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria, i.e., born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens at the time of the President’s birth. Neither Arthur nor Obama were “natural born Citizens” at the time of birth. Arthur was born to an alien father who also made his U.S. citizen mother an alien. Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father who never became a U.S. citizen and, being here only on a temporary student visa, was never even an immigrant. There have been 46 Americans that have served as Vice-President (not including Mr. Biden). Ten were born before 1787. All Vice-Presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. Fourteen Vice Presidents have gone on to be President.

    Some believe that John Tyler was our first "natural born Citizen" President. They believe that a President had to be born after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 in order to be a “natural born Citizen.” Since Tyler was born in 1790 in Virginia, they conclude that he was the first President to be a “natural born Citizen.” I do not agree with this approach to determining who our first "natural born Citizen" President was.

    The citizens made the Constitution and their government. The Constitution and government did not make the citizens. The citizens had the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness granted to them by nature and their Creator and not by the Constitution or government. On July 4, 1776, our first Americans declared independence from Great Britain and created the new American community of free and independent states. July 4, 1776 is therefore the critical date which established American citizenship. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the first constitution of the United States, which went into use in 1777 and which were formally ratified on March 1, 1781, officially recognized the nation as the "United States of America." Hence, all those who helped create the new nation became its members and therefore its citizens. These were the first "Citizens of the United States," which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 grandfathered to be eligible to be President provided they were born before the adoption of the Constitution.

    Hence, anyone born after July 4, 1776 in the U.S. to parents who became "Citizens of the United States" as a result of the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution was born in the country to U.S. citizen parents and therefore a "natural born Citizen." The First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 even extended the “natural born Citizen” status to persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. The Third Congress, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the 1790 Act and declared such children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be considered as “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.”

    The first President to be born after July 4, 1776 in the U.S. to parents who became "Citizens of the United States" on July 4, 1776 was Martin Van Buren, who was born in 1782 in New York. He was therefore the first President to be a "natural born Citizen." Tyler was the second President to be born under these birth circumstances which makes him the second President to be a "natural born Citizen."

    Let us now examine how President James Buchanan, who had an Irish father, Woodrow Wilson, who had an English mother, and Herbert Hoover, who had a Canadian mother, were “natural born Citizens.” As we have seen, President Thomas Jefferson, whose mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both born in Ireland, were grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Chester Arthur, not being either grandfathered or a “natural born Citizen,” will be treated separately.

    When determining whether a child born in the U.S. is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” the question is not whether the parents of the child are foreign born. Rather, the question is whether they are “citizens of the United States” at the time of the child’s birth in the United States. In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), our U.S. Supreme Court, providing the same definition of a “natural born citizen” as did Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (175, but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated:

    "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. So as we can see, the Supreme Court told us that a “natural born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. See also, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (189 (distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” and cited Vattel and quoted his definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett but relied on the English common law to define a born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment).

    The status of being “citizens of the United States” can be acquired by the parents by either being “natural born Citizens” or by becoming “citizens of the United States” by naturalization under an Act of Congress or treaty or if born in the U.S. under the 14th Amendment. The case of Perkins v Elg 307 U. S. 325 (1939) makes the point and shows how a child born in the U.S. to naturalized parents was declared a “natural born Citizen.” The central question in the Perkins case dealt with whether the Elg child lost her U.S. birth citizenship status because of the acts of her parents and not because of anything she elected to do or some treaty or Act of Congress. But the case is also important in understanding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

    Under out naturalization laws, citizenship can be derived from a close relation to a family member. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens. In some periods of our history, these laws provided that married women derived citizenship from their husband and had no control over their status. Under the Act of 10 February 1855, a woman automatically became an American upon marrying a U.S. citizen or following the naturalization of her foreign husband. Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (186. The 1922 Married Women's Act (or the Cable Act) finally severed the link between naturalization and marital status for most women.

    Marie Elg's parents emigrated from Sweden to the U.S. in 1906. In that same year, Mr. Elg naturalized and became a U.S. citizen. Under the then existing naturalization laws (Act of 10 February 1855), his wife automatically became a U.S. citizen through the U.S. naturalization of her husband. Hence, when Marie Elg was born in the U.S. in 1907 both her mother and father were U.S. citizens. Marie Elg was therefore a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. The Court found that “[o]n her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.” Additionally, the lower court found Elg to be a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this finding. The Court therefore gave a child born to naturalized “citizens of the United States” the right to run for President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Elg therefore once again affirmed the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents, a definition that was confirmed during the Founding by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (175. On the other hand, no U.S. Supreme Court decision has found a child born to one or two alien parents to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    So as we can see, a “natural born Citizen” can be produced by being born in the U.S. to naturalized parents who are “citizens of the United States.” Also, under our old naturalization laws, once a woman married a U.S. citizen, she herself automatically became a U.S. citizen derivatively from her husband. These laws apply to show that three of the six Presidents listed were “natural born Citizens.” Jefferson was not a “natural born Citizen” but, adhering to the revolution, was a “citizen of the United States.” Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he was grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Jackson, also became a “citizen of the United States” by adhering to the revolution and also grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Buchanan’s father naturalized to become a “citizen of the United States” prior to his son’s birth. Wilson’s mother became a “citizen of the United States” when she married her husband who was a “citizen of the United States.” Hoover’s mother became a “citizen of the United States” when she married her husband who was a “citizen of the United States." So except for Jefferson and Jackson who were grandfathered, all these presidents were born in the U.S. to parents who were at the time of their birth “citizens of the United States.” They were all “natural born Citizens.”

    The only exception to all this, apart from Barack Obama, is Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur (1881-1885), was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. His father, William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. His father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Chester Arthur’s mother, Malvina Stone, was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Because the citizenship of the wife merged into that of the husband, this made Arthur born to an alien mother and father. He was therefore born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. It is believed that Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to hide the fact that when he was born his father was not a U.S. citizen and to therefore obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. What is most telling is that Chester Arthur also burned all personal records just prior to his death. Chester Arthur was challenged during his Vice Presidential bid on the ground that he was not born in the United States. No one challenged Chester Arthur on the ground that even if he were born in the United States, he was still not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his father’s foreign citizenship at the time of his birth which also made his mother an alien. Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father’s and mother’s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth. Gregory J. Dehler, Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006, ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792, 192 pages;http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress....ject-at-birth/. Also see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio on the Chester Arthur issue which can be found at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress....ject-at-birth/.

    The Founders and Framers wrote the Constitution in a way that best provided for the protection of our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They sought to do that by giving us a constitutional republic and providing for the survival and preservation of that republic. In the governmental scheme that they gave us, they provided for the Office of President and Commander in Chief, a singular and all-powerful office involving the concentration of both civilian and military power into one person. Because of such concentration of power in one individual, the Framers recognized that such offices also presented great risk to the republic and its people. They therefore gave us the “natural born Citizen” clause as one basis for eligibility to such offices. Through the “natural born Citizen” clause, they instructed us that such power must fall into the hands of a person who can be trusted with it to the greatest degree possible and that such guarantee is of much greater importance to the survival and preservation of the constitutional republic than the fleeting politics and personal favor of having one person necessarily occupy that office. What is profound is that the Founders and Framers put their trust in “Nature and Nature’s God” and not in political and legal institutions to accomplish that end.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/ci...residents.html

  5. #45
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Excellent article, Sherry. Yes, that is what has always been a natural born citizen under Article II, US Constitution. Born in the USA to 2 US Citizen Parents.

    Thank you.



    Neither Obama, McCain, Cruz or Rubio meet the eligibility standards for President and Vice President of the United States. Obama is disqualified by the Kenyan father. McCain is disqualified by birth in Panama. Cruz is disqualified by birth in Canada and Cuban father. Rubio is disqualified by Cuban parents. When just us extraordinary ordinary Americans know this, why don't Obama, McCain, Cruz and Rubio know this? Obama and Cruz are Harvard trained lawyers. Rubio is a University of Miami Law trained lawyer. McCain is a West Point graduate and the son of a big General.

    My exceptional ordinary American husband was born in a foreign country while his parents, both US citizens, worked for the oil industry. His brother and sister were born in the US because the timing met with visits home so they could be born here. His timing didn't work so he is foreign born. He's known all his life that he couldn't be President or Vice President of the United States because he is not a natural born citizen under Article II, US Constitution. So if he knows this, why don't Obama, McCain, Cruz and Rubio know this?

    Answer: They do know it. They don't care, because the US Constitution "doesn't matter" to them. Their interests aren't about US or our country, it's about themselves and their donors.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #46
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Judy wrote:

    Excellent article, Sherry. Yes, that is what has always been a natural born citizen under Article II, US Constitution. Born in the USA to 2 US Citizen Parents..

    That is incorrect. Cruz was born to an American mother, and therefore both under the laws of this nation’s founding, and also the laws in effect when he was born in 1970, he is a natural born citizen of the United States.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #47
    Senior Member European Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    France
    Posts
    4,548
    BY REUVEN BLAUNEW YORK DAILY NEWS Monday, February 22, 2016, 12:05 AM

    Donald Trump lobs birther attack at Marco Rubio

    Donald Trump unleashed a wild birther attack on Marco Rubio on Sunday, questioning his eligibility for the presidency by trying to create uncertainty about the Florida senator’s place of birth.

    The two-faced tycoon retweeted a fantastic accusation claiming “It’s a SLAM DUNK CASE” that Ted Cruz and Rubio are both ineligible to run for President.

    The orange-hued developer appeared to double down on the birther conspiracy Sunday.

    “I don’t know. I really — I’ve never looked at it, George. I honestly have never looked at it,” Trump told George Stephanopoulos during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning. “As somebody said, he’s not. And I retweeted it. I have 14 million people between Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, and I retweet things and we start dialogue and it’s very interesting.”

    Rubio, who was born in Miami to immigrant parents, fired back.

    “He says something that’s edgy and outrageous and then the media flocks and covers that and then no one else can get any coverage on anything else,” Rubio said during a separate interview on “This Week.”

    “And that worked when there were 15 people running for President. It’s not going to work anymore. I’m going to spend zero time on his interpretation of the Constitution with regards to eligibility.”

    Trump has long questioned Cruz’s eligibility, arguing that he can’t run because he was born in Canada. That claim has ignored the fact that Cruz’s mother is a U.S. citizen, which automatically granted her son citizenship.

    Previously, Trump acknowledged that Rubio was eligible to run for the country’s top office.

    “He was born here,” Trump said in January. “He was born on the land. Ted was not born on the land, and there’s a very strict reading that you have to be born on the land.”

    Donald Trump lobs birther attack at Marco Rubio - NY Daily News

  8. #48
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post

    That is incorrect. Cruz was born to an American mother, and therefore both under the laws of this nation’s founding, and also the laws in effect when he was born in 1970, he is a natural born citizen of the United States.
    Congressional law does not determine who is eligible to run for President and Vice President for reasons too obvious to bother stating again here in these discussions.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #49
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Congressional law does not determine who is eligible to run for President and Vice President for reasons too obvious to bother stating again here in these discussions.
    Anyone who acquires U.S. citizenship at birth, whether by virtue of the 14th Amendment or by operation of federal statute, qualifies as a natural born citizen.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #50
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    SAVE AMERICA, VOTE NBC!

    Natural Born Citizen = Born in the USA to 2 US Citizens.

    No 14th Amendment Anchor Babies or Foreign-Born Dual Citizens in the White House.

    Do your job, Americans.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-13-2016, 01:37 PM
  2. Ted Cruz 'birther' row focusing on Cruz's MOTHER
    By JohnDoe2 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-15-2016, 12:16 PM
  3. Judge Blocks Birther Lawsuit In Vermont
    By JohnDoe2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-16-2012, 08:37 PM
  4. WorldNetDaily Birther Lawsuit Against Esquire Dismissed
    By JohnDoe2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-05-2012, 01:24 PM
  5. FL-Third lawsuit filed against Buchanan
    By FedUpinFarmersBranch in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-20-2008, 06:20 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •