alan grayson threatens lawsuit on citizenship grounds if ted cruz is the gop nominee

[washamericom]

There is no legal reason why Cruz is not eligible.

Except that the US Constitution precludes him from eligibility, because, he like obama, he was born to a foreign national.

Except of course the U.S. Constitution says no such thing.

Except maybe in your top secret invisible ink version.

that would be obama's sy.

 

[washamericom]

There is no legal reason why Cruz is not eligible.

Except that the US Constitution precludes him from eligibility, because, he ... like obama, was born to a foreign national.

Name the presidential candidate who had to show the birth certificates, or natualization papers, of both parents to prove they were U.S. citizens when they were born.

I could be wrong, but in don't believe that's ever been asked of any candidate ever, in the history of the United States. Why? Because there's no such ******* requirement. You're just batshit crazy

name one that's as controversial. he should want to show it to clear it up. this will haunt his legacy, and that is a direct blow to his epic ego.

trump offered fifty million $$ for the records, if he was clean (not just obama), that money would already be working to help fix the chicago south side.

Controversies are not a requirement to be President. Being a natural born citizen is. Yahoos claim a natural born citizen requires 2 U.S. citizen parents, yet in the entire history of this nation, no candidate has ever been asked to show evidence of such.

what about mccain ?

 

[Faun]

There is no legal reason why Cruz is not eligible.

Except that the US Constitution precludes him from eligibility, because, he ... like obama, was born to a foreign national.

Name the presidential candidate who had to show the birth certificates, or natualization papers, of both parents to prove they were U.S. citizens when they were born.

I could be wrong, but in don't believe that's ever been asked of any candidate ever, in the history of the United States. Why? Because there's no such ******* requirement. You're just batshit crazy

name one that's as controversial. he should want to show it to clear it up. this will haunt his legacy, and that is a direct blow to his epic ego.

trump offered fifty million $$ for the records, if he was clean (not just obama), that money would already be working to help fix the chicago south side.

Controversies are not a requirement to be President. Being a natural born citizen is. Yahoos claim a natural born citizen requires 2 U.S. citizen parents, yet in the entire history of this nation, no candidate has ever been asked to show evidence of such.

what about mccain ?

What about him?

 

[washamericom]

Except that the US Constitution precludes him from eligibility, because, he ... like obama, was born to a foreign national.

Name the presidential candidate who had to show the birth certificates, or natualization papers, of both parents to prove they were U.S. citizens when they were born.

I could be wrong, but in don't believe that's ever been asked of any candidate ever, in the history of the United States. Why? Because there's no such ******* requirement. You're just batshit crazy

name one that's as controversial. he should want to show it to clear it up. this will haunt his legacy, and that is a direct blow to his epic ego.

trump offered fifty million $$ for the records, if he was clean (not just obama), that money would already be working to help fix the chicago south side.

Controversies are not a requirement to be President. Being a natural born citizen is. Yahoos claim a natural born citizen requires 2 U.S. citizen parents, yet in the entire history of this nation, no candidate has ever been asked to show evidence of such.

what about mccain ?

What about him?

that was an interesting time. the media became focused on john mccain's eligibility.
state department passport records were breached.
in state and federal congresses, eligibility bills were introduced. there were even cooridinated efforts (inquiries) to redefine eligibility, if i remember correctly.

 

[Syriusly]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4

except the clause we are concerned with is not clause 4

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

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.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no legal reason why Cruz is not eligible.

Except that the US Constitution precludes him from eligibility, because, he ... like obama, was born to a foreign national.

Name the presidential candidate who had to show the birth certificates, or natualization papers, of both parents to prove they were U.S. citizens when they were born.

I could be wrong, but in don't believe that's ever been asked of any candidate ever, in the history of the United States. Why? Because there's no such ******* requirement. You're just batshit crazy

name one that's as controversial. he should want to show it to clear it up. this will haunt his legacy, and that is a direct blow to his epic ego.

trump offered fifty million $$ for the records, if he (chicago machine) was clean (not just obama), that money would already be working to help fix the chicago south side.

LOL- so you really believe Trump would have paid anything?

There is no controversy except among Birthers- aka idiots- like Grayson- and Trump.

And you .

 

[Syriusly]

Name the presidential candidate who had to show the birth certificates, or natualization papers, of both parents to prove they were U.S. citizens when they were born.

I could be wrong, but in don't believe that's ever been asked of any candidate ever, in the history of the United States. Why? Because there's no such ******* requirement. You're just batshit crazy

name one that's as controversial. he should want to show it to clear it up. this will haunt his legacy, and that is a direct blow to his epic ego.

trump offered fifty million $$ for the records, if he was clean (not just obama), that money would already be working to help fix the chicago south side.

Controversies are not a requirement to be President. Being a natural born citizen is. Yahoos claim a natural born citizen requires 2 U.S. citizen parents, yet in the entire history of this nation, no candidate has ever been asked to show evidence of such.

what about mccain ?

What about him?

that was an interesting time. the media became focused on john mccain's eligibility.
state department passport records were breached.
in state and federal congresses, eligibility bills were introduced. there were even cooridinated efforts (inquiries) to redefine eligibility, if i remember correctly.

For a very brief time, McCain's eligibility was questioned by a few- because he was not born in the United States(ala Cruz). The Senate- including Senator Obama- passed a resolution declaring that McCain was eligible. While not legally binding- it did make it clear that if Senator McCain was to be elected, Congress would not question his eligibility.

There have been attempts to change eligiblity requirements since as far back as Kissinger's time- and there is one Congressman who has been introducing bills to change eligibility requirements for I believe over 10 years.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I just want to point out that Birthers can find no example of Americans believing this crap in the 100 years prior to Obama running for election.

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

Now is there anyway that we can demonstrate this?

Hmm...

Ok.... Let's try this:

You say that for over a century, 'just being BORN in the USA to at least one US Citizen is plenty to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

So fine... we let of Chester take his seat on the bench, because 'its just the Vice Presidency... and BANG! four months later he's the President... .

Fast forward 120ish years and a poor black child of dubious birth origins, is born to a communist ***** US Citizen, sired by a communist Kenyan. His party says he was born in the only state in the US which legally provided Birth Certs to foreign born children during that time... and what the hell... he's in.

While Chester muddled through his time without any major damage... and while some douche no one has ever heard of was VP to some President of no consequence, despite also being the child of a foreign National parent... the THIRD TIME was the evil charm.

In the nidst of the the carnage from the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy... and as the US is at war with a fair percentage of Islam engaged in an international manhunt for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin... Come to the stage... the PROOF CERTAIN that God has a WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR... a Brown Clown by the name of Barak Hussein Obama.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

The damage that this creature has done to the United States as a direct consequence of his disdain for American principle is INCALCULABLE.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

And as was inevitable... nefarious forces used that idiocy to sit the Brown Clown and severely, if not fatally injure the United States.

Consequences like 5% unemployment and a record high stock market?

Nothing more amusing than a leftist desperately pretending he really believes that people look around and go, "Wow, what a GREAT economy! Golly gee whiz, we need more of THIS!"

5% unemployment. Fool, please.

 

[washamericom]

I just want to point out that Birthers can find no example of Americans believing this crap in the 100 years prior to Obama running for election.

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

Now is there anyway that we can demonstrate this?

Hmm...

Ok.... Let's try this:

You say that for over a century, 'just being BORN in the USA to at least one US Citizen is plenty to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

So fine... we let of Chester take his seat on the bench, because 'its just the Vice Presidency... and BANG! four months later he's the President... .

Fast forward 120ish years and a poor black child of dubious birth origins, is born to a communist ***** US Citizen, sired by a communist Kenyan. His party says he was born in the only state in the US which legally provided Birth Certs to foreign born children during that time... and what the hell... he's in.

While Chester muddled through his time without any major damage... and while some douche no one has ever heard of was VP to some President of no consequence, despite also being the child of a foreign National parent... the THIRD TIME was the evil charm.

In the nidst of the the carnage from the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy... and as the US is at war with a fair percentage of Islam engaged in an international manhunt for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin... Come to the stage... the PROOF CERTAIN that God has a WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR... a Brown Clown by the name of Barak Hussein Obama.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

The damage that this creature has done to the United States as a direct consequence of his disdain for American principle is INCALCULABLE.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

And as was inevitable... nefarious forces used that idiocy to sit the Brown Clown and severely, if not fatally injure the United States.

Consequences like 5% unemployment and a record high stock market?

Nothing more amusing than a leftist desperately pretending he really believes that people look around and go, "Wow, what a GREAT economy! Golly gee whiz, we need more of THIS!"

5% unemployment. Fool, please.

i had that very thought. if a republican gets in it will be fifteen percent the first day.

 

[washamericom]

name one that's as controversial. he should want to show it to clear it up. this will haunt his legacy, and that is a direct blow to his epic ego.

trump offered fifty million $$ for the records, if he was clean (not just obama), that money would already be working to help fix the chicago south side.

Controversies are not a requirement to be President. Being a natural born citizen is. Yahoos claim a natural born citizen requires 2 U.S. citizen parents, yet in the entire history of this nation, no candidate has ever been asked to show evidence of such.

what about mccain ?

What about him?

that was an interesting time. the media became focused on john mccain's eligibility.
state department passport records were breached.
in state and federal congresses, eligibility bills were introduced. there were even cooridinated efforts (inquiries) to redefine eligibility, if i remember correctly.

For a very brief time, McCain's eligibility was questioned by a few- because he was not born in the United States(ala Cruz). The Senate- including Senator Obama- passed a resolution declaring that McCain was eligible. While not legally binding- it did make it clear that if Senator McCain was to be elected, Congress would not question his eligibility.

There have been attempts to change eligiblity requirements since as far back as Kissinger's time- and there is one Congressman who has been introducing bills to change eligibility requirements for I believe over 10 years.

congress doesn't have the authority to change the qualifications, so questioning is moot.

 

[Syriusly]

Controversies are not a requirement to be President. Being a natural born citizen is. Yahoos claim a natural born citizen requires 2 U.S. citizen parents, yet in the entire history of this nation, no candidate has ever been asked to show evidence of such.

what about mccain ?

What about him?

that was an interesting time. the media became focused on john mccain's eligibility.
state department passport records were breached.
in state and federal congresses, eligibility bills were introduced. there were even cooridinated efforts (inquiries) to redefine eligibility, if i remember correctly.

For a very brief time, McCain's eligibility was questioned by a few- because he was not born in the United States(ala Cruz). The Senate- including Senator Obama- passed a resolution declaring that McCain was eligible. While not legally binding- it did make it clear that if Senator McCain was to be elected, Congress would not question his eligibility.

There have been attempts to change eligiblity requirements since as far back as Kissinger's time- and there is one Congressman who has been introducing bills to change eligibility requirements for I believe over 10 years.

congress doesn't have the authority to change the qualifications, so questioning is moot.

Sigh.

Congress does have the authority to initiate Constitutional Amendments- which is what it would have taken for Kissinger or Albright or Schwartzenegger to be eligible- all of which had people proposing amendments so that they could be eligbile.

 

[washamericom]

what about mccain ?

What about him?

that was an interesting time. the media became focused on john mccain's eligibility.
state department passport records were breached.
in state and federal congresses, eligibility bills were introduced. there were even cooridinated efforts (inquiries) to redefine eligibility, if i remember correctly.

For a very brief time, McCain's eligibility was questioned by a few- because he was not born in the United States(ala Cruz). The Senate- including Senator Obama- passed a resolution declaring that McCain was eligible. While not legally binding- it did make it clear that if Senator McCain was to be elected, Congress would not question his eligibility.

There have been attempts to change eligiblity requirements since as far back as Kissinger's time- and there is one Congressman who has been introducing bills to change eligibility requirements for I believe over 10 years.

congress doesn't have the authority to change the qualifications, so questioning is moot.

Sigh.

Congress does have the authority to initiate Constitutional Amendments- which is what it would have taken for Kissinger or Albright or Schwartzenegger to be eligible- all of which had people proposing amendments so that they could be eligbile.

ratification is the *****. the activity around eligibility in 08 was hinky.

 

[Syriusly]

What about him?

that was an interesting time. the media became focused on john mccain's eligibility.
state department passport records were breached.
in state and federal congresses, eligibility bills were introduced. there were even cooridinated efforts (inquiries) to redefine eligibility, if i remember correctly.

For a very brief time, McCain's eligibility was questioned by a few- because he was not born in the United States(ala Cruz). The Senate- including Senator Obama- passed a resolution declaring that McCain was eligible. While not legally binding- it did make it clear that if Senator McCain was to be elected, Congress would not question his eligibility.

There have been attempts to change eligiblity requirements since as far back as Kissinger's time- and there is one Congressman who has been introducing bills to change eligibility requirements for I believe over 10 years.

congress doesn't have the authority to change the qualifications, so questioning is moot.

Sigh.

Congress does have the authority to initiate Constitutional Amendments- which is what it would have taken for Kissinger or Albright or Schwartzenegger to be eligible- all of which had people proposing amendments so that they could be eligbile.

ratification is the *****. the activity around eligibility in 08 was hinky.

Hell no one even got any of the proposals far enough to worry about ratification.

The only thing 'hinky' in 2008 was the very sudden interest in whether a candidate was eligible or not.

 

[dcraelin]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4

except the clause we are concerned with is not clause 4

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

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.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

 

[washamericom]

that was an interesting time. the media became focused on john mccain's eligibility.
state department passport records were breached.
in state and federal congresses, eligibility bills were introduced. there were even cooridinated efforts (inquiries) to redefine eligibility, if i remember correctly.

For a very brief time, McCain's eligibility was questioned by a few- because he was not born in the United States(ala Cruz). The Senate- including Senator Obama- passed a resolution declaring that McCain was eligible. While not legally binding- it did make it clear that if Senator McCain was to be elected, Congress would not question his eligibility.

There have been attempts to change eligiblity requirements since as far back as Kissinger's time- and there is one Congressman who has been introducing bills to change eligibility requirements for I believe over 10 years.

congress doesn't have the authority to change the qualifications, so questioning is moot.

Sigh.

Congress does have the authority to initiate Constitutional Amendments- which is what it would have taken for Kissinger or Albright or Schwartzenegger to be eligible- all of which had people proposing amendments so that they could be eligbile.

ratification is the *****. the activity around eligibility in 08 was hinky.

Hell no one even got any of the proposals far enough to worry about ratification.

The only thing 'hinky' in 2008 was the very sudden interest in whether a candidate was eligible or not.

you remember this:

The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one,” he wrote. “One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.
Read more at Eye-popper: Is Nancy Pelosi in on eligibility cover-up?

10 Facts That Suggest Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Fake

 

[Syriusly]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4

except the clause we are concerned with is not clause 4

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

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.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

You should point that out to the Indiana Court of Appeals- I am sure that they would be fascinated.

Meanwhile I will point out that the Indiana Court of Appeals consists of actual legal experts- with actual legal authority- who reviewed the law and stated:

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.

You want to find an actual ruling that says otherwise- feel free to post it.

 

[Syriusly]

For a very brief time, McCain's eligibility was questioned by a few- because he was not born in the United States(ala Cruz). The Senate- including Senator Obama- passed a resolution declaring that McCain was eligible. While not legally binding- it did make it clear that if Senator McCain was to be elected, Congress would not question his eligibility.

There have been attempts to change eligiblity requirements since as far back as Kissinger's time- and there is one Congressman who has been introducing bills to change eligibility requirements for I believe over 10 years.

congress doesn't have the authority to change the qualifications, so questioning is moot.

Sigh.

Congress does have the authority to initiate Constitutional Amendments- which is what it would have taken for Kissinger or Albright or Schwartzenegger to be eligible- all of which had people proposing amendments so that they could be eligbile.

ratification is the *****. the activity around eligibility in 08 was hinky.

Hell no one even got any of the proposals far enough to worry about ratification.

The only thing 'hinky' in 2008 was the very sudden interest in whether a candidate was eligible or not.

you remember this:

The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one,” he wrote. “One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.
Read more at Eye-popper: Is Nancy Pelosi in on eligibility cover-up?

10 Facts That Suggest Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Fake

Oh god yes- I remember all of that Birther crap.

Birthers ate up that crap and pretended it was honey.

 

[washamericom]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4

except the clause we are concerned with is not clause 4

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

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.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

plus he wasn't running for either office.

Obama’s supporters will tell everyone who will listen that Barack Obama produced his real birth certificate in 2011. A single reporter – Savannah Guthrie of NBC news — was allowed to see the “real” document, and then it was scanned as a PDF file and loaded into the internet for everyone to see. As far as the Obama crowd is concerned, that’s the end of the story.

 

[dcraelin]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4

except the clause we are concerned with is not clause 4

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

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.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

You should point that out to the Indiana Court of Appeals- I am sure that they would be fascinated.

Meanwhile I will point out that the Indiana Court of Appeals consists of actual legal experts- with actual legal authority- who reviewed the law and stated:

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.

You want to find an actual ruling that says otherwise- feel free to post it.

I really find it hard to believe what your saying.....I dont even think they really said section 1...Ive read most of Wong some time ago and it was wrong . but also had nothing to do with someone running for president. Why the indiana court would comment on that is difficult to understand.....if they did it was an aside and has no legal authority.

 

[Syriusly]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4

except the clause we are concerned with is not clause 4

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

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.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

plus he wasn't running for either office.

Obama’s supporters will tell everyone who will listen that Barack Obama produced his real birth certificate in 2011. A single reporter – Savannah Guthrie of NBC news — was allowed to see the “real” document, and then it was scanned as a PDF file and loaded into the internet for everyone to see. As far as the Obama crowd is concerned, that’s the end of the story.

Wash- I don't normally humor your posts because you have the attention span of a chihuahua being taken out for the first time in a week.

What I would tell you is what the State of Hawaii has said- that Barack Obama presented his real birth certificate in 2008.
He then showed a room of reporters certified copies of his original birth certificate in 2011- one of whom handled it and took a picture of it- and posted that online- and to no one's surprise but Birther's (including Donald Trump) that photo matched the photo posted online by the Administration.

The photo verified by the State of Hawaii.

The only question is why any idiots still believe your crap, after the State of Hawaii has refuted it since 2008.