randita thinks if you're Mom is a citizen, you can be President, provided Canada won't have you:
Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a mother born and bred in the U.S. (Delaware). They were working in Canada for an oil company.bioqubit is not happy...
BY virtue of the U.S. citizenship of Cruz’s mother, he was born a U.S. citizen.
He could not have been born a Canadian citizen because according to Canadian law, in order to be born a citizen of Canada, at least one parent has to be a Canadian citizen (whether the child was born in Canada or in another country).
No one is certain what “natural born citizen” means?b4its2late's requirements seem more "b4its2late approves of" than anything else...
I can’t scream it loud enough, or make the letters big enough.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...CAN I KEEP GOING!!!!!??????
Natural Born Citizen is very simple and very clear. ONLY born on American soil, and ONLY if both, BOTH, I’ll say it again, BOTH parents are American citizens.
Anything else causes huge legal problems.
The best way to think of Natural Born as meaning a second generation American where both parents were American citizens PRIOR to the child’s birth. End of discussion. Anything else is misguided BS.
He’s infinitely more eligible than the dude in the seat now.zeebee seems suddenly sanguine about the usurpation continuing:
I’m probably as much of a birther as anyone, but IMO, the precedent has been set and Cruz will be eligible.ThePatriotsFlag knows Obama is like triple ineligible, so Cruz has GOT to be OK...
After Obama, anybody is eligible, it doesn’t seem to matter.I learned Natural Born Citizen meant born within the sovereignty of the US, but I honestly don't much care about that particular requirement these days. It would be freaking hilarious if it turns out Cruz is ineligible though, so that's what I'm hoping for.
Theoretically Cruz could be ruled ineligible, but the difficulty is that SCOTUS doesn't issue advisory opinions. Someone with Article III Standing (maybe a primary or general election opponent) would have to sue. Otherwise the lawsuit will just be kicked to the curb for this reason, like most birther suits. Even a McCain birther suit (who was born in Panama, albeit to two American citizens) was rejected on such grounds.
ReplyDeleteTEN appeals courts (nine state and one federal) have in fact ruled on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen status, including a ruling on McCain (Hollinder v. McCain), all of them ruled that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen. The ruling on McCain apparently considered a US naval base to be US soil.
DeleteHere are some of the rulings:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
On October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down two birther appeals of the Georgia ruling, Farrar, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND. So it is clear that every child born on US soil (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born Citizen.
But, the issue of birth on foreign soil was not resolved, of course.
Cruz is ineligible for the presidency, but not because of the circumstances of his birth. It's because he's too crazy. In other words, a typical Republican.
ReplyDelete"... but the difficulty is that SCOTUS doesn't issue advisory opinions. Someone with Article III Standing (maybe a primary or general election opponent) would have to sue."
ReplyDeleteYes. "The Constitution", by itself, is not "the law".
A "law" can be found to be "constitutuonal" or "unconstitutional", but someone still would have to test that law in court. Various laws in various states do describe ballot eligibility, so it may have to be a state-by-state issue until one could force a nationwide standard.
Poor little Birthers they are haters not debaters. In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage (don’t you get tired being lied to) and the rest of the Blowhards. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although some republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them are just going along and fanning the flames. Lets face it the Republicans had 8 years to deal with health care, immigration and financial oversight and governance and they failed. They could not even win one of the two wars they started, the body bags are still coming in. The Republicans wanted to give Obama his Waterloo defeat over healthcare and this last presidential election but instead they gave themselves their own Waterloo defeat by not participating in the debate of ideas and by becoming little, as the party of obstructionist. But they now claim they have changed, come on, what sucker is going to believe that Rubio, Paul, Cruz and Ryan are anything but losers? But maybe thats all you have.
ReplyDelete