Ted Cruz Natural Born ?

[Faun]

As Obama enjoying his second term demonstrates elegantly....

All such demonstrates is that obama is now in his second illegitimate term.

What do you think the remedy should be?

 

[Faun]

You know how this works, Viggy: I set the rules, you obey the rules. And if choose not to obey the rules, then you choose to accept the consequences.

And you choose to not learn my hometown. When you're ready to be obedient, I'll be about.

You not only don't set the rules, you have shown everyone just how stupid you are! I know you can't argue against the Mooch video, and we all know that by her admission, the Manchurian muslim was originally from Kenya.... I guess your getting tired of me writing...
What is YOUR HOME COUNTRY....your suppression of reality and your refusal to answer the question, is enough to know you are stalling, and you have no honesty, just another FAGERAL trait, that repeats and repeats!

Of course I set the rules. You're the one coming to me, hat in hand, begging me for information. You've put yourself in a powerless position.

He does that a lot. See my tagline.

 

[AntiParty]

according to the corporate media, "experts" say Cruz is eligible to run for POTUS because he had one parent who was an American national.

I don't know why they couldn't locate these experts when Donald Trump was making his moronic claims... oh, right, because it is the corporate media.

^Fact.

ABC, NBC, and CBS were all top ten donors to Obama. (could have been worse.)

 

[Vigilante]

Please continue girls, you take derangement to a whole new level!

 

[Porker]

Thanks for that ... but allow me to supply a portion you chose not to include .....

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: 'The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.' Id. 576. And to this extent no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

FindLaw Cases and Codes​

I included the ENTIRE ARTICLE as written dealing with the terminology 'natural-born citizen', including the link. To state otherwise is one more lie you liberal pricks are famous for.

 

[Syriusly]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Says you. You're the one offering us your definition based on whatever you imagine. And your imagination isn't a legal standard.

Its the same problem you run into on virtually every topic you attempt to discuss. You keep assuming that whatever you believe must be irrefutable fact. But there's no such mandate. Most often because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The USSC does;

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

Wong Kim Ark v. US

As clear as a bell, place of birth establishes natural born status. Even if both parents are foreigners.

You ignore it. No objective person ever would.

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

So you assume. And who are you quoting on your claim that a natural born citizen is only a person whose 'both parents are citizens'? The constitution doesn't say this. The courts never have. The founders certinaly didn't say that. And there's no mention of parents in the term 'natural born'.

So who are you quoting? Just yourself.

Do you have any argument to offer us that isn't just you citing yourself? If no, then you're done. As you're nobody.[

Then, a mulatto, born of a white American mother, but NOT YET 5 years after her 14th birthday, to a communist black man from Kenya,!

Vig: a mulatto... a white American mother.....to a black man

And Birthers like to pretend that their Birtherism isn't about race.....

 

[Porker]

And Birthers like to pretend that their Birtherism isn't about race.....

It's really about a native born Kenyan/community organizer living in the white house.

 

[Syriusly]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Says you. You're the one offering us your definition based on whatever you imagine. And your imagination isn't a legal standard.

Its the same problem you run into on virtually every topic you attempt to discuss. You keep assuming that whatever you believe must be irrefutable fact. But there's no such mandate. Most often because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The USSC does;

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

Wong Kim Ark v. US

As clear as a bell, place of birth establishes natural born status. Even if both parents are foreigners.

You ignore it. No objective person ever would.

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

So you assume. And who are you quoting on your claim that a natural born citizen is only a person whose 'both parents are citizens'? The constitution doesn't say this. The courts never have. The founders certinaly didn't say that. And there's no mention of parents in the term 'natural born'.

So who are you quoting? Just yourself.

Do you have any argument to offer us that isn't just you citing yourself? If no, then you're done. As you're nobody.[

Then, a mulatto, born of a white American mother, but NOT YET 5 years after her 14th birthday, to a communist black man from Kenya, In Kenya, wouldn't be allowed to be president by the Constitution restraints... And since said mulatto's wife has stated the mulatto's HOME COUNTRY IS KENYA, we have reasonable cause to believe all other material presented to affirm his American birth to be suspect! Money, and POWER can BUY the said mulatto almost perfect copies of birth certificates, but those little mistakes, such as the college pamphlet, the REFUSAL to show college records to discover if he was given special treatment as an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION case from a foreign country, and thus a PAID FOR scholarship, and the multiple SS #'s are STILL an open question.....sort of like the Benghazi papers requested from the State Dept. over 2 years ago, that still haven't shown up....oh, it's a tangled web these communist/socialist/progressive mother fuckers weave!

Wow- that is a whole pile of racist Konspiracy theory Kraziness.......

Birthers believe any flight of their fancy is 'probable cause'- well at least when it comes to 'mulatto's'

 

[Vigilante]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Says you. You're the one offering us your definition based on whatever you imagine. And your imagination isn't a legal standard.

Its the same problem you run into on virtually every topic you attempt to discuss. You keep assuming that whatever you believe must be irrefutable fact. But there's no such mandate. Most often because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The USSC does;

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

Wong Kim Ark v. US

As clear as a bell, place of birth establishes natural born status. Even if both parents are foreigners.

You ignore it. No objective person ever would.

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

So you assume. And who are you quoting on your claim that a natural born citizen is only a person whose 'both parents are citizens'? The constitution doesn't say this. The courts never have. The founders certinaly didn't say that. And there's no mention of parents in the term 'natural born'.

So who are you quoting? Just yourself.

Do you have any argument to offer us that isn't just you citing yourself? If no, then you're done. As you're nobody.[

Then, a mulatto, born of a white American mother, but NOT YET 5 years after her 14th birthday, to a communist black man from Kenya,!

Vig: a mulatto... a white American mother.....to a black man

And Birthers like to pretend that their Birtherism isn't about race.....

Definitions explained now offend the Tolerant, INTOLERANT! Must suck to be you, and have to look at that face every morning in the mirror....SHUDDER!!!!

 

[Skylar]

And Birthers like to pretend that their Birtherism isn't about race.....

It's really about a native born Kenyan/community organizer living in the white house.

Says you. The State of Hawaii says he's born in Hawaii.

Why would any rational person ignore the State of Hawaii on its own documents.....and instead believe you, citing yourself?

Especially when you've already been caught posting fake 'Kenyan Birth Certificates' that you knew were fake. But never told us were.

 

[Vigilante]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Says you. You're the one offering us your definition based on whatever you imagine. And your imagination isn't a legal standard.

Its the same problem you run into on virtually every topic you attempt to discuss. You keep assuming that whatever you believe must be irrefutable fact. But there's no such mandate. Most often because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The USSC does;

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

Wong Kim Ark v. US

As clear as a bell, place of birth establishes natural born status. Even if both parents are foreigners.

You ignore it. No objective person ever would.

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

So you assume. And who are you quoting on your claim that a natural born citizen is only a person whose 'both parents are citizens'? The constitution doesn't say this. The courts never have. The founders certinaly didn't say that. And there's no mention of parents in the term 'natural born'.

So who are you quoting? Just yourself.

Do you have any argument to offer us that isn't just you citing yourself? If no, then you're done. As you're nobody.[

Then, a mulatto, born of a white American mother, but NOT YET 5 years after her 14th birthday, to a communist black man from Kenya, In Kenya, wouldn't be allowed to be president by the Constitution restraints... And since said mulatto's wife has stated the mulatto's HOME COUNTRY IS KENYA, we have reasonable cause to believe all other material presented to affirm his American birth to be suspect! Money, and POWER can BUY the said mulatto almost perfect copies of birth certificates, but those little mistakes, such as the college pamphlet, the REFUSAL to show college records to discover if he was given special treatment as an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION case from a foreign country, and thus a PAID FOR scholarship, and the multiple SS #'s are STILL an open question.....sort of like the Benghazi papers requested from the State Dept. over 2 years ago, that still haven't shown up....oh, it's a tangled web these communist/socialist/progressive mother fuckers weave!

Wow- that is a whole pile of racist Konspiracy theory Kraziness.......

Birthers believe any flight of their fancy is 'probable cause'- well at least when it comes to 'mulatto's'

The forum can ALWAYS tell when a narrative has come very close to hitting the mark, when directed at the subversives.... they pull out the old "Konspiracy Kraziness Kard" and lay it on the table, believeing that all who see it will jump back in awe... Instead, most THINKERS look at it and chuckle at the futility of the that played it! ...SERIOUSLY!!!!!

 

[Vigilante]

And Birthers like to pretend that their Birtherism isn't about race.....

It's really about a native born Kenyan/community organizer living in the white house.

Says you. The State of Hawaii says he's born in Hawaii.

Why would any rational person ignore the State of Hawaii on its own documents.....and instead believe you, citing yourself?

Especially when you've already been caught posting fake 'Kenyan Birth Certificates' that you knew were fake. But never told us were.

Still can't handle the Mooocher spilling the beans, can you skyhooker!



"VISITED HIS HOME COUNTRY IN KENYA".... Let's do this again today...It's FUN watching the left REFUSE to answer "WHAT IS YOUR HOME COUNTRY" and the FAR OUT SPIN!....Continue, please!

 

[Porker]

Why would any rational person ignore the State of Hawaii on its own documents

.

Because they thought it was their ONLY CHANCE at Presidential representation for their little state out in the middle of the Pacific?

 

[Faun]

Why would any rational person ignore the State of Hawaii on its own documents

.

Because they thought it was their ONLY CHANCE at Presidential representation for their little state out in the middle of the Pacific?

Bullshit. They get countless requests for copies and the requests don't include "running for president." They're just names and SS numbers. You can't possibly prove your silly claim.

 

[Syriusly]

And Birthers like to pretend that their Birtherism isn't about race.....

It's really about a native born Kenyan/community organizer living in the white house.

And Birthers like to pretend that their Birtherism isn't about race.....

It's really about a native born Kenyan/community organizer living in the white house.

So you don't agree with Vig ?

Then, a mulatto, born of a white American mother, but NOT YET 5 years after her 14th birthday, to a communist black man from Kenya,!

 

[Skylar]

And Birthers like to pretend that their Birtherism isn't about race.....

It's really about a native born Kenyan/community organizer living in the white house.

Says you. The State of Hawaii says he's born in Hawaii.

Why would any rational person ignore the State of Hawaii on its own documents.....and instead believe you, citing yourself?

Especially when you've already been caught posting fake 'Kenyan Birth Certificates' that you knew were fake. But never told us were.

Still can't handle the Mooocher spilling the beans, can you skyhooker!



"VISITED HIS HOME COUNTRY IN KENYA".... Let's do this again today...It's FUN watching the left REFUSE to answer "WHAT IS YOUR HOME COUNTRY" and the FAR OUT SPIN!....Continue, please!

When you can show us a video of Michelle saying her husband was born in Kenya, you'll be permitted to rejoin the conversation.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would any rational person ignore the State of Hawaii on its own documents

.

Because they thought it was their ONLY CHANCE at Presidential representation for their little state out in the middle of the Pacific?

Why do you imagine or fantasize that Dr. Fukino- Republican- appointed by a Republican- a medical doctor and respected professional- risk her career and potential criminal prosecution- so that a Democratic President that you believe was born in Kenya- could be possibly elected?

 

[Vigilante]

And Birthers like to pretend that their Birtherism isn't about race.....

It's really about a native born Kenyan/community organizer living in the white house.

Says you. The State of Hawaii says he's born in Hawaii.

Why would any rational person ignore the State of Hawaii on its own documents.....and instead believe you, citing yourself?

Especially when you've already been caught posting fake 'Kenyan Birth Certificates' that you knew were fake. But never told us were.

Still can't handle the Mooocher spilling the beans, can you skyhooker!



"VISITED HIS HOME COUNTRY IN KENYA".... Let's do this again today...It's FUN watching the left REFUSE to answer "WHAT IS YOUR HOME COUNTRY" and the FAR OUT SPIN!....Continue, please!

When you can show us a video of Michelle saying her husband was born in Kenya, you'll be permitted to rejoin the conversation.

Use your eyes, since your supposed BRAIN can't get the picture!

 

[Vigilante]

Why would any rational person ignore the State of Hawaii on its own documents

.

Because they thought it was their ONLY CHANCE at Presidential representation for their little state out in the middle of the Pacific?

Why do you imagine or fantasize that Dr. Fukino- Republican- appointed by a Republican- a medical doctor and respected professional- risk her career and potential criminal prosecution- so that a Democratic President that you believe was born in Kenya- could be possibly elected?

He had probably a year to have the BEST forger and an insider PUT the altered document into the file BEFORE investigators went to look for it! Let the RAGE of the SUBVERSIVES begin!

 

[Faun]

Thanks for that ... but allow me to supply a portion you chose not to include .....

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: 'The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.' Id. 576. And to this extent no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

FindLaw Cases and Codes​

I included the ENTIRE ARTICLE as written dealing with the terminology 'natural-born citizen', including the link. To state otherwise is one more lie you liberal pricks are famous for.

So? That only proves your source was biased as they only included portions of those cases which were favorable to their argument; while completely omitting portions that blew fatal head wounds into their failed position. You're guilty of blindly accepting their word without doing any research to see if they're even right, which they're not. But then, that's the price YOU pay for letting others do your thinking. Just like when you posted that obviously fake photo of Obama and Ayers together at Columbia University.