Oh My: Old Tape Surfaces Of Ted Cruz In Interview Admitting He Is Not A 'Natural Born Citizen'

[Billy000]

The presidential clause Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution clearly states you have to be a natural born Citizen to be president today:

[No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.]

Ted Cruz wont admit he's a natural born Citzen when the interviewer tells him that is what the Constitution specifically calls for in terms to be president. Instead he dances around the issue like Fred Astair not admitting he specifically is a NBC.

I bet if he was Caucasian you would love this guy.

 

[The Rabbi]

The presidential clause Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution clearly states you have to be a natural born Citizen to be president today:

[No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.]

Ted Cruz wont admit he's a natural born Citzen when the interviewer tells him that is what the Constitution specifically calls for in terms to be president. Instead he dances around the issue like Fred Astair not admitting he specifically is a NBC.

I bet if he was Caucasian you would love this guy.

So what race is Ted Cruz?
Billy, you are truly an ignorant dipshit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Oh My: Old Tape Surfaces Of Ted Cruz In Interview Admitting He Is Not A 'Natural Born Citizen'"

lol

At least Cruz is consistent at being wrong – even about himself.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Oh My: Old Tape Surfaces Of Ted Cruz In Interview Admitting He Is Not A 'Natural Born Citizen'"

lol

At least Cruz is consistent at being wrong – even about himself.

He wasnt wrong.
I see Cruz Derangement Syndrome as a comer

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Perkins v. ElgPerkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives 'examples of' what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

'Examples of', being the operative phrase. Obviously anyone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. Your claim is that ONLY someone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. And that's something that Elg neither states nor even insinuates.

As stated earlier, the founders used British common law as their understanding of the term 'natural born'. And natural born status per this tradition was recognized as following place of birth. Not parentage.

A standard that Elg Perkins clearly meets.

Wrong!

 

[Skylar]

Perkins v. ElgPerkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives 'examples of' what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

'Examples of', being the operative phrase. Obviously anyone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. Your claim is that ONLY someone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. And that's something that Elg neither states nor even insinuates.

As stated earlier, the founders used British common law as their understanding of the term 'natural born'. And natural born status per this tradition was recognized as following place of birth. Not parentage.

A standard that Elg Perkins clearly meets.

Wrong!

Says you. Neither Elg nor Wong back your claims that ONLY someone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen.

It might help if you actually read the cases you claim to cite.

 

[Syriusly]

Perkins v. ElgPerkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives 'examples of' what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

'Examples of', being the operative phrase. Obviously anyone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. Your claim is that ONLY someone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. And that's something that Elg neither states nor even insinuates.

As stated earlier, the founders used British common law as their understanding of the term 'natural born'. And natural born status per this tradition was recognized as following place of birth. Not parentage.

A standard that Elg Perkins clearly meets.

Wrong!

Says you. Neither Elg nor Wong back your claims that ONLY someone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen.

It might help if you actually read the cases you claim to cite.

Well Stevie isn't one to let himself be limited to the truth.

 

[whitehall]

Too bad nobody interviewed senator Obama and asked him the same question.

 

[Skylar]

Too bad nobody interviewed senator Obama and asked him the same question.

Would it really matter to the batty birthers, Whitehall? They've ignored everyone from the Republican governor of Hawaii to the Republican Secretary of State of Arizona to the Republican Director of the Department of Health of Hawaii Chioyme Fukino on Obama's place of birth.

Do you really think they'd give a fiddler's fuck what Obama had to say on the topic?

 

[Skylar]

Perkins v. ElgPerkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives 'examples of' what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

'Examples of', being the operative phrase. Obviously anyone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. Your claim is that ONLY someone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. And that's something that Elg neither states nor even insinuates.

As stated earlier, the founders used British common law as their understanding of the term 'natural born'. And natural born status per this tradition was recognized as following place of birth. Not parentage.

A standard that Elg Perkins clearly meets.

Wrong!

Says you. Neither Elg nor Wong back your claims that ONLY someone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen.

It might help if you actually read the cases you claim to cite.

Well Stevie isn't one to let himself be limited to the truth.

The part about Steven that I find so amusing is that he'll run when faced with better reasoning and better evidence. But then a few days later, when he thinks no one is listening, will creep back onto the board with the exact same claims that he abandoned a few days earlier.

Steven's arguments are deeply reliant on the ignorance of his audience. And he's always looking for an audience that knows almost nothing about the topic. As its only those folks who are likely to buy his debunked story.

 

[Syriusly]

Perkins v. ElgPerkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives 'examples of' what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

'Examples of', being the operative phrase. Obviously anyone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. Your claim is that ONLY someone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen. And that's something that Elg neither states nor even insinuates.

As stated earlier, the founders used British common law as their understanding of the term 'natural born'. And natural born status per this tradition was recognized as following place of birth. Not parentage.

A standard that Elg Perkins clearly meets.

Wrong!

Says you. Neither Elg nor Wong back your claims that ONLY someone born in the US to two US parents is a natural born citizen.

It might help if you actually read the cases you claim to cite.

Well Stevie isn't one to let himself be limited to the truth.

The part about Steven that I find so amusing is that he'll run when faced with better reasoning and better evidence. But then a few days later, when he thinks no one is listening, will creep back onto the board with the exact same claims that he abandoned a few days earlier.

Steven's arguments are deeply reliant on the ignorance of his audience. And he's always looking for an audience that knows almost nothing about the topic. As its only those folks who are likely to buy his debunked story.

Well Stevie is lucky that anyone who appreciates his posts is always deeply ignorant.

 

[Syriusly]

Too bad nobody interviewed senator Obama and asked him the same question.

Since Obama declared himself to be eligible when he submitted his candidacy to the Secretaries of State's- he answered that question.

Oh and when challenged by the Arizona Secretary of State, Hawaii confirmed his natural born citizen status and satisfied Arizona's Secretary of State- one more Republican who is convinced that President Obama was born in Hawaii.