Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
No, you KNOW the truth. What you think you need is to keep harping on it anyway because of what you WANT the truth to be, evidence be damned.
No, you KNOW the truth. What you think you need is to keep harping on it anyway because of what you WANT the truth to be, evidence be damned.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
So now your objection is that his wife was a successful executive, instead of . . . what, precisely? What would have made her "appropriate"?
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
What in the world are you talking about?
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Why? They aren't running for president. He is!
The leftist hate successful, conservative, women,but they are pro-women don't you know
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Why don't you ask him? Also, why don't you get copies of his income tax records, college transcripts, and anything else he is not required to produce?
Do you also want pictures of his circumcision? We can't have any President with a foreskin!
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
14yrs old I think
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Yep! You know a 14-year old will spend a lot of time learning about their commander's politics while attempting to overthrow a brutal dictator.
He was young, he didn't know any better...These grown, leftist, never learn they are "Stuck on stupid"
Searcher44
Gold Member
Every little misstep by the framers comes back at some point to bite Americans on the ass. Just goes to show the existential importance of this short little document I guess, (only 4500 words, plus amendments). The word citizen is used many times in the Constitution but "natural born citizen" is used for only one purpose, as one of the qualifiers of eligibility for office of President and Vice President. Makes me think the phrase held some deeper underlying meaning than several posters here are giving credit. John Jay seems to be the founder who came up with the idea that the President and Vice President should fall under the category of "natural born citizen". In a note to the presiding officer of the convention, George Washington, he put this bug in his ear;
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen"
So while the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate. (WIKI) And therein lies the "misstep", an overridingly important clause without a definition to inform future generations. Maybe back then the meaning was clear to all involved. There are hints in contemporary documents though. These hints suggest that some posters comments are probably too shallow and overlook something the framers gave much more import to.
"...his dual citizenship is irrelevant to his eligibility."
".....he held dual citizenship. Doesn't alter the fact that he was born a US citizen."
"if you didn't go through the naturalization program, then you're probably natural born." Those poster's comments take the Constitutional parameters rather more like off-hand suggestions than strict constitutional protocol.
Here's a hint from Wiki;
"St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in his 1803 edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, that the natural born citizen clause is "a happy means of security against foreign influence" and that "[t]he admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."[33] In a footnote, Tucker wrote that naturalized citizens have the same rights as the natural-born except "they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States." It seems even a native born citizen, perhaps to an Irish mother and Italian father wasn't guarantor enough of loyalty. Or a Brit even 30 yrs. in country.
And in a speech to the Senate, delegate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney gave the rationale, "to insure experience and attachment to the country." Statements like these lead me to believe someone's dual citizenship might very well have raised red flags to those who supported the clause. As further evidence the phrase held special import, The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens... This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as "natural born," replacing it with "the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States"
My opinion is that Ted Cruz is a citizen of the United States and I lean toward the "living constitution" philosophy so the archaic wording of Art.ll, Sec1, Clause 5 shouldn't stand in his way.
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.
[FONT=CallunaRegular, Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]Of course as usual there's the other bureaucratic paperwork that he'll have to produce to prove his final eligibility, his mother should have a copy of
"Consular Report of Birth Abroad" (form FS 240) which she would have had to fill out in Canada to obtain his status as a U.S. citizen. And she'll have to prove she fulfilled the necessary residency status before and after his birth. So even though I think that old "natural born" requirement involved the older still notions of "jus soli ( place - born on American soil) and jus sanguinis (parentage - having at least one American by birth parent) I still think he should be allowed to continue his candidacy.
It may detract a few points from my opinion if I reveal that "the father of the Constitution" disagrees with me....
"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States." - James Madison
Reading through the anachronisms I believe they wanted Presidents and Vice Presidents born in the USA with American blood in their veins.[/FONT]
[FONT=CallunaRegular, Georgia, Times New Roman, serif] [/FONT]
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen"
So while the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate. (WIKI) And therein lies the "misstep", an overridingly important clause without a definition to inform future generations. Maybe back then the meaning was clear to all involved. There are hints in contemporary documents though. These hints suggest that some posters comments are probably too shallow and overlook something the framers gave much more import to.
"...his dual citizenship is irrelevant to his eligibility."
".....he held dual citizenship. Doesn't alter the fact that he was born a US citizen."
"if you didn't go through the naturalization program, then you're probably natural born." Those poster's comments take the Constitutional parameters rather more like off-hand suggestions than strict constitutional protocol.
Here's a hint from Wiki;
"St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in his 1803 edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, that the natural born citizen clause is "a happy means of security against foreign influence" and that "[t]he admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."[33] In a footnote, Tucker wrote that naturalized citizens have the same rights as the natural-born except "they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States." It seems even a native born citizen, perhaps to an Irish mother and Italian father wasn't guarantor enough of loyalty. Or a Brit even 30 yrs. in country.
And in a speech to the Senate, delegate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney gave the rationale, "to insure experience and attachment to the country." Statements like these lead me to believe someone's dual citizenship might very well have raised red flags to those who supported the clause. As further evidence the phrase held special import, The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens... This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as "natural born," replacing it with "the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States"
My opinion is that Ted Cruz is a citizen of the United States and I lean toward the "living constitution" philosophy so the archaic wording of Art.ll, Sec1, Clause 5 shouldn't stand in his way.
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.
[FONT=CallunaRegular, Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]Of course as usual there's the other bureaucratic paperwork that he'll have to produce to prove his final eligibility, his mother should have a copy of
"Consular Report of Birth Abroad" (form FS 240) which she would have had to fill out in Canada to obtain his status as a U.S. citizen. And she'll have to prove she fulfilled the necessary residency status before and after his birth. So even though I think that old "natural born" requirement involved the older still notions of "jus soli ( place - born on American soil) and jus sanguinis (parentage - having at least one American by birth parent) I still think he should be allowed to continue his candidacy.
It may detract a few points from my opinion if I reveal that "the father of the Constitution" disagrees with me....
"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States." - James Madison
Reading through the anachronisms I believe they wanted Presidents and Vice Presidents born in the USA with American blood in their veins.[/FONT]
[FONT=CallunaRegular, Georgia, Times New Roman, serif] [/FONT]
Mertex
Cat Lady =^..^=
- Apr 27, 2013
- 26,532
- 13,992
- 1,445
Mertex
Cat Lady =^..^=
- Apr 27, 2013
- 26,532
- 13,992
- 1,445
That's only the right-wing nut jobs that push that myth. If it were true, at least one of the many right-wing created scandals against her would have stuck......so far, they have ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, against her....and she just made them look like a bunch of fools at the last (was it the 10th, committee hearing on Benghazi?) with nothing to show for it.
She may be indicted ,and morons like this person worry about Cruz taking out a loan against his retirement ..you cant make this stuff up
That is the Republican dream.......but that is all it is, a "dream" that so far is going up in smoke.
And we're not worried about Cruz's loan.....it just points out what a sleazy liar he truly is.
Do you support corruption in government ? Crony deals while the Clintons get filthy rich? You leftist are a joke
Have you checked out Cheney? At the cost of American lives, even.....you rightards are the joke.
Dick Cheney: War Profiteer
Let's call it what it is: Crony Capitalism
How much money did Dick Cheney make from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? - Quora
Mertex
Cat Lady =^..^=
- Apr 27, 2013
- 26,532
- 13,992
- 1,445
Says the idiot who claims she is smart and votes Republican. I see you didn't respond to my post where I told you that even your Republican leaders don't think you are smart because you are a "woman" and wouldn't pay you the same as they pay a man for the same job - and yet you continue to vote for them.......bwahahahaha....
Keep trying to defend Canadian Teddy........I'm just laughing my head off because it is causing him quite a headache....and by his own party, too.....that ought to tell you something!
McCain, in fact, is happy to let Cruz — with whom he has tussled repeatedly in the Senate — twist in the wind.
“I don’t know” whether Cruz is eligible, the Arizona Republican said on a radio show Wednesday night.
Ted Cruz wrestles with birther debate
Mertex
Cat Lady =^..^=
- Apr 27, 2013
- 26,532
- 13,992
- 1,445
Mertex
Cat Lady =^..^=
- Apr 27, 2013
- 26,532
- 13,992
- 1,445
You haven't responded as to why you think it is okay for your leaders to not want to pay you the same as they pay a man for the same job......shitforbrains!
You can't even define your best interests for yourself.....moron....and your comment is just a lot of fluff that further proves your inability to realize that you vote against your own interests.
Mertex
Cat Lady =^..^=
- Apr 27, 2013
- 26,532
- 13,992
- 1,445
Geez, you really are ignorant, aren't you? Nobody said that Harvard teaches Canadian law.....but if Teddy is so bright, and he must have known he was born in Canada, don't you think he could have "googled" to see whether or not he had Canadian birthright? It doesn't take "rocket science" to figure out that if you are born in another country you might want to check out what their birthright rules are? Just in case you may want to run for President later on? Of course not, you wouldn't, you're even dumber than Cruz.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,633
- 32,677
- 2,180
That's only the right-wing nut jobs that push that myth. If it were true, at least one of the many right-wing created scandals against her would have stuck......so far, they have ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, against her....and she just made them look like a bunch of fools at the last (was it the 10th, committee hearing on Benghazi?) with nothing to show for it.
She may be indicted ,and morons like this person worry about Cruz taking out a loan against his retirement ..you cant make this stuff up
That is the Republican dream.......but that is all it is, a "dream" that so far is going up in smoke.
And we're not worried about Cruz's loan.....it just points out what a sleazy liar he truly is.
Do you support corruption in government ? Crony deals while the Clintons get filthy rich? You leftist are a joke
Have you checked out Cheney? At the cost of American lives, even.....you rightards are the joke.
Dick Cheney: War Profiteer
Let's call it what it is: Crony Capitalism
How much money did Dick Cheney make from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? - Quora
Time to update your bumper stickers, Moonzippy Hashbrain.
Mertex
Cat Lady =^..^=
- Apr 27, 2013
- 26,532
- 13,992
- 1,445
That's only the right-wing nut jobs that push that myth. If it were true, at least one of the many right-wing created scandals against her would have stuck......so far, they have ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, against her....and she just made them look like a bunch of fools at the last (was it the 10th, committee hearing on Benghazi?) with nothing to show for it.
She may be indicted ,and morons like this person worry about Cruz taking out a loan against his retirement ..you cant make this stuff up
That is the Republican dream.......but that is all it is, a "dream" that so far is going up in smoke.
And we're not worried about Cruz's loan.....it just points out what a sleazy liar he truly is.
Do you support corruption in government ? Crony deals while the Clintons get filthy rich? You leftist are a joke
Have you checked out Cheney? At the cost of American lives, even.....you rightards are the joke.
Dick Cheney: War Profiteer
Let's call it what it is: Crony Capitalism
How much money did Dick Cheney make from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? - Quora
Time to update your bumper stickers, Moonzippy Hashbrain.
Uh oh......must be another Cruz drooler............or is it a doofus Bush defender? Why don't you read the post I was responding to, genius?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Muslims: 'Kill all Jews' / 'Allahu Akbar' message at San Jose State University.- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 4
-
-
-
