"Cruz Can't Run" IS NOT a Conspiracy Theory: These Documents Actually Exist

[kaz]

Where is child is born and spends formative years without US recognition or loyalty defines who that child is at his core. Ted Cruz spent the first four years of his life, with a Canadian birth certificate in Alberta Canada and has had no formal documentation of any US citizenship. The closest he came was to renounce his Canadian birthright citizenship in 2014. The paper trail of Cruz's "Americanism" is very wonky. And "wonky" isn't what the FFs had in mind with national security and minimizing foreign allegiances..

As you know, the law changed after the country was founded because obviously in the early days, NONE of the eligible men for POTUS could have been natural born. Then gentry class anyway...the pilgrims and peasants had been here for awhile longer. Then they got together and narrowly defined "natural born" just for POTUS. And they had their reasons: treason, from foreign influence, however slight.

Again, for those just tuning in, the question of whether or not Cruz can run for POTUS over all 50 states has yet to be heard by a court that has proper jurisdiction over the question. That will be... *checks watch* around September this year. October at the latest.

The paper trail of Cruz's "Americanism" is very wonky.

Durr.

Doesn't matter. He was born a natural born citizen. Has he renounced citizenship?

the court has never defined "natural born citizen". you're barely smart enough to put pen to paper. i think we should probably let the high Court sort it out if it becomes an issue.

You crack me up, you just agreed with my argument while insulting my intelligence. My God, how do you earn a living now that your looks are gone? Or is that the voting for Hillary plan?

Un believable what an airhead you are

i did not agree with you. you said cruz "was born a natural born citizen".

read with comprehension.

I see, so until the court writes the law, you don't know what it is?

 

[Pete7469]

The courts have ruled that Cruz is a US citizen. It's over, move on.

Dead issue...

If Cruz was not a natural citizen there would have to be immigration documents on him.

There aren't any because he didn't need any.

I don't know why you keep harping on this. You don't want Dump to be the nominee, and K-snitch will certainly lead to a democrook victory.

Put a fork in it already. It's done.

I was in agreement with Predfan, but I was also addressing the OP.

 

[kaz]

The courts have ruled that Cruz is a US citizen. It's over, move on.

Dead issue...

If Cruz was not a natural citizen there would have to be immigration documents on him.

There aren't any because he didn't need any.

I don't know why you keep harping on this. You don't want Dump to be the nominee, and K-snitch will certainly lead to a democrook victory.

Put a fork in it already. It's done.

I was in agreement with Predfan, but I was also addressing the OP.

Exactly, a point the Cryin Donald supporters continually ignore when I raise it. How can you not be natural born and at the same time not have been naturalized?

 

[Syriusly]

The courts have ruled that Cruz is a US citizen. It's over, move on.

it hasn't been before "the Courts". it was before one court and was dismissed because they challenged him too late, not because he's a "natural born citizen".

but thanks for your expertise.

Incorrect- the case has been dismissed on the merits of the challenge in both Penn and New Jersey.

The New Jersey opinion is a very interesting read.

the new jersey opinion turns on the timing.

Two courts- Penn and New Jersey- both confirmed Cruz's eligiblity based upon the merits of the case.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The courts have ruled that Cruz is a US citizen. It's over, move on.

it hasn't been before "the Courts". it was before one court and was dismissed because they challenged him too late, not because he's a "natural born citizen".

but thanks for your expertise.

Incorrect- the case has been dismissed on the merits of the challenge in both Penn and New Jersey.

The New Jersey opinion is a very interesting read.

the new jersey opinion turns on the timing.

Two courts- Penn and New Jersey- both confirmed Cruz's eligiblity based upon the merits of the case.

Liar.

New Jersey Ballot Challenge Report: Judge Did Not Review Briefs Submitted by Challengers | The Post & Email

 

[The Rabbi]

Amazing. How long will we continue to hear this crap? There has never been a succesful challenge to Cruz' eligibility. Not one.
Anyone posting that Cruz is not eligible is prima facie an idiot.

 

[regent]

Who is to stop Cruz from running?

 

[Silhouette]

I see, so until the court writes the law, you don't know what it is?

Well yeah, the court "writing the law"...as they often do. Look at Cali. Millions of voters said one man/ one woman marriage only and ONE gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend (who quickly retired after he performed unilateral sedition upon the voters there), "wrote" the law differently. Just as five Supreme Court Justices "wrote in" law into the Constitution adding "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" to the 14th Amendment..

..the point is that the US Supreme Court has to hear this case. They're they only ones with the jurisdiction over it since it affects the entire Union as a whole; not individual activist-judges from this that or the other state with an agenda in mind in the short term..

For some reason this time I feel the liberal-majority will "suddenly" want to honor Scalia's more narrow & originalist interpretations if Cruz gets the nomination. Call it a hunch....and an empty seat...

 

[The Rabbi]

I see, so until the court writes the law, you don't know what it is?

Well yeah, the court "writing the law"...as they often do. Look at Cali. Millions of voters said one man/ one woman marriage only and ONE gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend (who quickly retired after he performed unilateral sedition upon the voters there), "wrote" the law differently. Just as five Supreme Court Justices "wrote in" law into the Constitution adding "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" to the 14th Amendment..

..the point is that the US Supreme Court has to hear this case. They're they only ones with the jurisdiction over it since it affects the entire Union as a whole; not individual activist-judges from this that or the other state with an agenda in mind in the short term..

For some reason this time I feel the liberal-majority will "suddenly" want to honor Scalia's more narrow & originalist interpretations if Cruz gets the nomination. Call it a hunch....and an empty seat...

No one has standing to bring the suit, turdface. The Supremes won't hear the case. Nor do they have original jurisdiction.

 

[Silhouette]

Right, the Supremes don't have jurisdiction over constitutional question of law that immediately affect all 50 states (whoever POTUS is presides over all 50 states)

I guess that lefties just bald faced lying is what all this has come to.

 

[Silhouette]

Two courts- Penn and New Jersey- both confirmed Cruz's eligiblity based upon the merits of the case.

And now for the rest of that story... Breaking: NJ Judge Admits He Never Read Briefs That Ted Cruz Was Not A Natural Born Citizen

...the more you know....

 

[The Rabbi]

Two courts- Penn and New Jersey- both confirmed Cruz's eligiblity based upon the merits of the case.

And now for the rest of that story... Breaking: NJ Judge Admits He Never Read Briefs That Ted Cruz Was Not A Natural Born Citizen

...the more you know....

Good. I would hate to think NJ judges were wasting their time with conspiracy theories.

 

[Syriusly]

Two courts- Penn and New Jersey- both confirmed Cruz's eligiblity based upon the merits of the case.

And now for the rest of that story... Breaking: NJ Judge Admits He Never Read Briefs That Ted Cruz Was Not A Natural Born Citizen

...the more you know....

LOL- how wonderfully cliche- a bigot like you quoting a thread by Stevie the Racist.

And Stevie is quoting the "Post and Email" a quagmire of deceit.

New Jersey Ballot Challenge Report: Judge Did Not Review Briefs Submitted by Challengers | The Post & Email

Note what the PEE stated in its headline- versus what it said in its OP ed piece- "judge did not review briefs submitted by challengers"- but in the article- he actually said something else:

one of the attorneys, who is also a write-in candidate in New Jersey and eight other states, told The Post & Email that Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin stated at the outset that he did not read the briefs and any attachments submitted by the challengers prior to convening the hearing.

Note that 'prior to convening the hearing'

The entire PEE Op Ed piece is just the usual Birther conjecture taken as proof of something.....

Birthers are such idiots.

 

[Syriusly]

Right, the Supremes don't have jurisdiction over constitutional question of law that immediately affect all 50 states (whoever POTUS is presides over all 50 states)

I guess that lefties just bald faced lying is what all this has come to.

Poor Silhouette

Delusional and clueless as always.

 

[Syriusly]

I see, so until the court writes the law, you don't know what it is?

Well yeah, the court "writing the law"...as they often do. Look at Cali. Millions of voters said one man/ one woman marriage only and ONE gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend ...

Silhouette- could you even post if you couldn't lie?

1. The court did not write law in California- they overturned an unconstitutional law- a ruling the Supreme Court ultimately upheld in Obergefell- confirming that the judge was correct- along with a couple of dozen of other judges who ruled the same way.
   
2. There is no evidence- other than the voices in your head- that the judge Vaughn Walker wanted to marry anyone. Not only has he never said he wanted to marry his boyfriend- to this day he has not. Once again you are just lying.

 

[Syriusly]

The courts have ruled that Cruz is a US citizen. It's over, move on.

it hasn't been before "the Courts". it was before one court and was dismissed because they challenged him too late, not because he's a "natural born citizen".

but thanks for your expertise.

Incorrect- the case has been dismissed on the merits of the challenge in both Penn and New Jersey.

The New Jersey opinion is a very interesting read.

the new jersey opinion turns on the timing.

Two courts- Penn and New Jersey- both confirmed Cruz's eligiblity based upon the merits of the case.

Liar.

New Jersey Ballot Challenge Report: Judge Did Not Review Briefs Submitted by Challengers | The Post & Email

LOL- poor Stevie the racist......first an African American running for President- now a Latino?

No worries- the GOP is not going to select the Cuban Canadian- though they probably won't select your great white hope either.

Meannwhile- two courts- on the merits- have ruled Cruz is eligible.

 

[kaz]

I see, so until the court writes the law, you don't know what it is?

Well yeah, the court "writing the law"...as they often do. Look at Cali. Millions of voters said one man/ one woman marriage only and ONE gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend ...

Silhouette- could you even post if you couldn't lie?

1. The court did not write law in California- they overturned an unconstitutional law- a ruling the Supreme Court ultimately upheld in Obergefell- confirming that the judge was correct- along with a couple of dozen of other judges who ruled the same way.
   
2. There is no evidence- other than the voices in your head- that the judge Vaughn Walker wanted to marry anyone. Not only has he never said he wanted to marry his boyfriend- to this day he has not. Once again you are just lying.

Gays had the same access to marriage as straights. The law is literal, not figurative

 

[Syriusly]

I see, so until the court writes the law, you don't know what it is?

Well yeah, the court "writing the law"...as they often do. Look at Cali. Millions of voters said one man/ one woman marriage only and ONE gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend ...

Silhouette- could you even post if you couldn't lie?

1. The court did not write law in California- they overturned an unconstitutional law- a ruling the Supreme Court ultimately upheld in Obergefell- confirming that the judge was correct- along with a couple of dozen of other judges who ruled the same way.
   
2. There is no evidence- other than the voices in your head- that the judge Vaughn Walker wanted to marry anyone. Not only has he never said he wanted to marry his boyfriend- to this day he has not. Once again you are just lying.

Gays had the same access to marriage as straights. The law is literal, not figurative

And once again the facts:

1. The court did not write law in California- they overturned an unconstitutional law- a ruling the Supreme Court ultimately upheld in Obergefell- confirming that the judge was correct- along with a couple of dozen of other judges who ruled the same way.
   
2. There is no evidence- other than the voices in your head- that the judge Vaughn Walker wanted to marry anyone. Not only has he never said he wanted to marry his boyfriend- to this day he has not. Once again you are just lying.

 

[kaz]

I see, so until the court writes the law, you don't know what it is?

Well yeah, the court "writing the law"...as they often do. Look at Cali. Millions of voters said one man/ one woman marriage only and ONE gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend ...

Silhouette- could you even post if you couldn't lie?

1. The court did not write law in California- they overturned an unconstitutional law- a ruling the Supreme Court ultimately upheld in Obergefell- confirming that the judge was correct- along with a couple of dozen of other judges who ruled the same way.
   
2. There is no evidence- other than the voices in your head- that the judge Vaughn Walker wanted to marry anyone. Not only has he never said he wanted to marry his boyfriend- to this day he has not. Once again you are just lying.

Gays had the same access to marriage as straights. The law is literal, not figurative

And once again the facts:

1. The court did not write law in California- they overturned an unconstitutional law- a ruling the Supreme Court ultimately upheld in Obergefell- confirming that the judge was correct- along with a couple of dozen of other judges who ruled the same way.
   
2. There is no evidence- other than the voices in your head- that the judge Vaughn Walker wanted to marry anyone. Not only has he never said he wanted to marry his boyfriend- to this day he has not. Once again you are just lying.

You responded to Silhouette's post, not mine. But gays had the same access to marriage as straights in California. Gay or straight did not change who you could marry. That made it a job for the legislature, not the courts.

As for the judge, no idea, again, I didn't say anything about the judge being a flamer, no idea. He doesn't understand the Constitution though. It's a limit on government, not a power of government

 

[Skylar]

I see, so until the court writes the law, you don't know what it is?

Well yeah, the court "writing the law"...as they often do. Look at Cali. Millions of voters said one man/ one woman marriage only and ONE gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend (who quickly retired after he performed unilateral sedition upon the voters there), "wrote" the law differently. Just as five Supreme Court Justices "wrote in" law into the Constitution adding "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" to the 14th Amendment..

..the point is that the US Supreme Court has to hear this case.

No, they don't. And they almost certainly won't. Remember, your record of predicting outcomes is one of perfect failure. You've never once been right. You're always wrong.

But this time its different, huh?