Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 153

Thread: "Ineligible" - Cruz' former Harvard Law professor

  1. #1

    Default "Ineligible" - Cruz' former Harvard Law professor

    MORE SCHOLARS SAY TED CRUZ CAN'T BE PRESIDENT (January)

    A growing number of constitutional law scholars are arguing that Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada makes him ineligible to become U.S. president.
    Their argument could prove a thorn in the side of the senator, who is a zealous originalist on most constitutional questions . . .
    a former teacher of Cruz's says he thinks the senator isn't eligible to run for president. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard who taught both Cruz and President Barack Obama, wrote about the subject in an op-ed published Monday in The Boston Globe.
    "But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an 'originalist,' one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution's terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn't be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and '90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a 'natural born' citizen. Even having two U.S. parents wouldn’t suffice.
    In response, Cruz called Tribe "a liberal left-wing judicial activist."
    http://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-can...citizen-415430

    It's a neat irony: The most conservative constitutional interpreters must find Cruz ineligible to be president; liberals must grin and bear him.

    Cruz himself purports to embrace originalism as the correct view of the Constitution.
    To be faithful to his understanding of what the Constitution means, the senator may have to disqualify himself.

    - Thomas Lee, professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...110-story.html

    It is actually, of course, Cruz espousing HIS far-left liberal interpretations . . .
    and denying he is a 1970-born child covered by the Naturalization Act of 1952, the law for a foreign-born child of one US citizen parent in 1970.
    He could never be trusted in appointing originalist constitutionalist judges, imo.

    So, this is the best he's got - since it worked so well for him with Iowans already . . . still(?)
    Supporter Asks Cruz To Justify That He's Eligible To Be President (VIDEO) (February 18)

    "The law under the Constitution and federal law has been clear from the very first days of the Republic.
    The child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural born citizen," Cruz replied.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...-cnn-town-hall
    Last edited by Jan2017; 02-18-2016 at 01:17 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    This is why Rafael had Scalia heart attacked in his sleep.

  4. #3

    Default

    Why would he have to be Naturalized if he was already a Natural Born?
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    You do know that you [dannno] are a moron right?
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    I love Che because...
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    ...he did that which I was too cowardly afraid to do
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Just for the record, 99% of the time I say "In my country........" I am actually messing with you people because I know you guys have absolutely no idea what happens in my country.

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    This is why Rafael had Scalia heart attacked in his sleep.
    There'd seem to be a motive . . . if embalmed already, toxicology not possible unless tissue samples (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Why would he have to be Naturalized if he was already a Natural Born?
    He is a "derivative" citizen only, derived from a US Citizen parent . . .
    US government could even order a blood test/DNA to prove it was in fact a US citizen that was the actual parent that could impart that derived citizenship.

    The child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural born citizen," Cruz replied. = LIE

    Cruz' probably completed his naturalization residence requirement for the 1952 Naturalization Act in 1980,
    Furthermore, as a dual-citizen until 18 months ago,
    Cruz would not have been entitled to protection by the US State Department or a US Embassy while in the nation of his foreign-birth.

  6. #5

    Default

    Okay, let's say it's true and Cruz is ineligible. Why did the GOP apparatus not check this out before investing time and money into his campaign? (debate time, etc)
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)//I sell stuff here go buy nao!

  7. #6

    Default

    Because "the GOP apparatus" are anti-American scumbags who are delighted to have an ineligible foreigner in the White House. Hope this helps.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulGeorge&Ringo View Post
    Because "the GOP apparatus" are anti-American scumbags who are delighted to have an ineligible foreigner in the White House. Hope this helps.
    Cui bono?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)//I sell stuff here go buy nao!

  9. #8

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Okay, let's say it's true and Cruz is ineligible. Why did the GOP apparatus not check this out before investing time and money into his campaign? (debate time, etc)
    Because Cruz is so ass-kissingly pro-Israel they don't care?
    Nor would they care if during the next election we find ourselves with a duel-citizenship Mexican/American running for president, or an Isreali/American.

    Cui bono?
    The North American Union, which Cruz most likely supports, as his wife certainly does.
    Building a North American Community: http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-n...ommunity/p8102
    (You'll find Heidi Cruz listed as one of the authors.)
    Last edited by Valli6; 02-18-2016 at 02:43 PM.

  11. #10

    Default

    My interpretation of the Constitution tells me that a Natural Born Citizen would be the child of a citizen, regardless of location of birth. American Blood. Posterity is entitled to the full blessings of Liberty.

    This tells me that if one of Rafael Cruz parents were a full American Citizen (natural or naturalized), then he should be considered Natural Born.

    My question (only because I haven't looked it up); Was Teds dad a naturalized citizen when Ted was born? Was Teds mom enjoying full natural born citizenship when Ted was born?

    If the answer to either of those is "yes" Ted is is a Natural Born citizen, because he is the Posterity of American Citizens.

    Likewise, a Mexican Citizen or any other Foreign National, we're they to have a child while visiting America (assuming neither parent can be proven to be a US Citizen), they would not be a Natural Born Citizen. Not a Citizen at all.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertas Aut Mortis View Post
    My interpretation of the Constitution tells me that a Natural Born Citizen would be the child of a citizen, regardless of location of birth. American Blood. Posterity is entitled to the full blessings of Liberty.

    This tells me that if one of Rafael Cruz parents were a full American Citizen (natural or naturalized), then he should be considered Natural Born.

    My question (only because I haven't looked it up); Was Teds dad a naturalized citizen when Ted was born? Was Teds mom enjoying full natural born citizenship when Ted was born?

    If the answer to either of those is "yes" Ted is is a Natural Born citizen, because he is the Posterity of American Citizens.

    Likewise, a Mexican Citizen or any other Foreign National, we're they to have a child while visiting America (assuming neither parent can be proven to be a US Citizen), they would not be a Natural Born Citizen. Not a Citizen at all.
    1) No
    If one of the parent-citizen is a full Citizen, the foreign-born child becomes a US subject under naturalization law after he meets the requirements -
    if he doesn't by age 23 he loses both any claim to nationality or citizenship and gets deported.

    Mom may very well not be regarded as a full US citizen either - claiming Canadian nationality.
    She wasn't filing US taxes as required for foreign-residing US citizen, or to claim Ted as a dependent to the USA, she was registered to vote in Canada (in 1974 ?), and not included for USA census in 1970 as citizen living abroad either.

    Q2) No and Q3) No

    Rafael Jr.'s mom was born in Delaware, and was living in Canada with a Cuban-born husband non-US citizen for about 3 years in the late 60's
    before Rafael Jr. came along. FBI file from the Nixon-era on the former Eleanor Darragh in Canada ?

  13. #12

    Default

    Mom may very well not be regarded as a full US citizen either
    Rafael Jr.'s mom was born in Delaware
    That mean she was a full citizen.
    "The only thing we have to fear is.... fear itself!" Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
    "Be afwaid. Be berry afwaid" Donald Trump.

    The optimists built this country and made it great- not the fearful. Fear can only destroy.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    1) No
    If one of the parent-citizen is a full Citizen, the foreign-born child becomes a US subject under naturalization law after he meets the requirements -
    if he doesn't by age 23 he loses both any claim to nationality or citizenship and gets deported.

    Mom may very well not be regarded as a full US citizen either - claiming Canadian nationality.
    She wasn't filing US taxes as required for foreign-residing US citizen, or to claim Ted as a dependent to the USA, she was registered to vote in Canada (in 1974 ?), and not included for USA census in 1970 as citizen living abroad either.

    Q2) No and Q3) No

    Rafael Jr.'s mom was born in Delaware, and was living in Canada with a Cuban-born husband non-US citizen for about 3 years in the late 60's
    before Rafael Jr. came along. FBI file from the Nixon-era on the former Eleanor Darragh in Canada ?
    I understand where you are coming from...and youre probably right when dealing with congressional law, but i wasnt talking about existing law.

    I meant only what, if only using the constitution, the difference between natural born and naturalized should be (thus rendering any contridictory congressional law null and void)

    You say, which i thought but wasnt sure of, that teds mom and dad were not full us citizens at the time of his birth.

    Boom, under my constitutional view, if that is actually the case, the its adios Rafael.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    That mean she was a full citizen.
    Full citizens that do not meet requirements of a US citizen living abroad lose more rights and privileges when renouncing that US citizenship.
    Her partial/dual citizenship causes the most problems when she disregards US laws.

    But even allowing the mom consideration as a full US citizen, albeit disregarding US law,
    Ted only got naturalized with derivative citizenship through one parent.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertas Aut Mortis View Post
    I understand where you are coming from...and youre probably right when dealing with congressional law, but i wasnt talking about existing law.

    I meant only what, if only using the constitution, the difference between natural born and naturalized should be (thus rendering any contridictory congressional law null and void)

    You say, which i thought but wasnt sure of, that teds mom and dad were not full us citizens at the time of his birth.

    Boom, under my constitutional view, if that is actually the case, the its adios Rafael.
    Rafael Sr., Ted's father was not a US citizen. If he was, Ted actually would have some possible claim to automatic citizenship (8 USC 1431)
    which is what happens to adoptions btw I think.

    His mother could be considered a full Citizen I suppose if you want to be much more generous than reality, fine.
    He can become naturalized through her, but it is not automatic.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    Rafael Sr., Ted's father was not a US citizen. If he was, Ted actually would have some possible claim to automatic citizenship (8 USC 1431)
    which is what happens to adoptions btw I think.

    His mother could be considered a full Citizen I suppose if you want to be much more generous than reality, fine.
    He can become naturalized through her, but it is not automatic.
    Yeah, I've pretty much agreed with everything you've said so far....case closed, under your congressional understanding he's not a natural born citizen, under my constitutional view,...he's not a natural born citizen.

    Hit the road jack!

  18. #17

    Default

    Just the fact that Cruz decided to run for president knowing his citizenship was an issue, makes me despise him. There is no way he could have not forseen this. He just couldn't be bothered to care!

    I suspect he held onto his Canadian citizenship for so long, because he saw it as an advantage should a North American Union become reality.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valli6 View Post
    Just the fact that Cruz decided to run for president knowing his citizenship was an issue, makes me despise him. There is no way he could have not forseen this. He just couldn't be bothered to care!

    I suspect he held onto his Canadian citizenship for so long, because he saw it as an advantage should a North American Union become reality.
    On top of that...he ran against Paul (whom he claims to be of the same fabric as).....how do you know Ted despises the Liberty Movement that elected him? Look no further than his candidacy.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertas Aut Mortis View Post
    On top of that...he ran against Paul (whom he claims to be of the same fabric as).....how do you know Ted despises the Liberty Movement that elected him? Look no further than his candidacy.


    +1

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertas Aut Mortis View Post
    I meant only what, if only using the constitution, the difference between natural born and naturalized should be (thus rendering any contridictory congressional law null and void) . . .
    Constitutionally is the strongest case against Cruz of course . . .

    James Madison himself said in 1789 that the U.S. used the place of birth rather than parentage.

    John Jay and Benjamin Franklin returned from France, where in the 1780's they were demanding France recognize their independence.
    Mr. Franklin made it to the "top-secret" Constitutional Convention, but the Secretary of Foreign Affairs was in New York City.

    A couple of New York delegates left the convention in mid-summer with the news that the Articles of Confederation were being replaced,
    and may have been the ones to tell Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay.
    Or it may have been Hamilton who rode back to New York City several times, who told Jay of what they were doing in Philadelphia, dismantling the Articles.

    The low-key, presiding officer of the Convention received a letter from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs within the first week of talking about the new national executive -
    Jay in NYC didn't know exactly what was going on in Philly, but he wrote to his good friend General Washington about the command of the Army -

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide as a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government;
    and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural
    born Citizen.



  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulGeorge&Ringo View Post
    Because "the GOP apparatus" are anti-American scumbags who are delighted to have an ineligible foreigner in the White House. Hope this helps.
    And Cruz is top three for Wall Street money, the same money that wipes the GOP's apparatus' ass. Bush, Clinton and Cruz are the top recipients of bankster money. No way the apparatus going to bite the hand that feeds them.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Okay, let's say it's true and Cruz is ineligible. Why did the GOP apparatus not check this out before investing time and money into his campaign? (debate time, etc)
    Cruz, while ineligible, would still be just a great wrecking ball to liberty in the end of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    James Madison himself said in 1789 that the U.S. used the place of birth rather than parentage.
    Discussing a legislative house member/South Carolinian
    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; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

    Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
    ...
    So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.
    22 May 1789 Papers 12:179--82
    The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962--77 (vols. 1--10);
    Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977--(vols. 11--).

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    Constitutionally is the strongest case against Cruz of course . . .

    James Madison himself said in 1789 that the U.S. used the place of birth rather than parentage.

    John Jay and Benjamin Franklin returned from France, where in the 1780's they were demanding France recognize their independence.
    Mr. Franklin made it to the "top-secret" Constitutional Convention, but the Secretary of Foreign Affairs was in New York City.

    A couple of New York delegates left the convention in mid-summer with the news that the Articles of Confederation were being replaced,
    and may have been the ones to tell Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay.
    Or it may have been Hamilton who rode back to New York City several times, who told Jay of what they were doing in Philadelphia, dismantling the Articles.

    The low-key, presiding officer of the Convention received a letter from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs within the first week of talking about the new national executive -
    Jay in NYC didn't know exactly what was going on in Philly, but he wrote to his good friend General Washington about the command of the Army -

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide as a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government;
    and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural
    born Citizen.



    Very good research! If I knew how to +rep I would.

    Here he underlines "born", clearly stating that naturalized citizens must not be commander in chief, else they may have some hidden alliengence to their former soverign. So the issue, still comes down to this:

    If only persons born on American Soil are Natural Born, then that includes Foreign Nationals born here (anchor babies ect)

    If only persons born on American Soil to an American Citizen are Natural Born, then you are excluding American Citizens from their birthright solely because their parents happened to be out of country, on vacation or diplomatic assignment for example. I just dont think that is just.

    If only persons born with to an American Citizen, regardless of Soil, then honestly, I think the loopholes fix themselves from both of the above examples.

    The problem is, American women used to solely reside in America, and we didn't face issues of travel. Now that we do, there is a question raised that the Founding Fathers never forsaw....how will we respond?

    I say afford Natural Born based on blood. I think it's the logical continuation of the Founders Principles.

  25. #24

    Default

    John Jay had terrible penmanship. We can't read half the words in that letter. Is the date 1707 or 1787??? Thus we shouldn't believe anything he has to say

  26. #25

    Default

    My understanding of 'natural born citizen' is that it is somebody born on US territory be it the continental United States or some military base or embassy overseas, Cruz's dad was a Cuban refugee and Canadian citizen I believe at the time of his birth which to me implies conflicting loyalties. I don't believe Cruz to be eligible. I mean, if he is eligible then why was there ever any question about Obama? I thought that was the whole point, that he was born outside the country thus ineligible. Definitely something that should be clarified.
    Last edited by jkob; 02-18-2016 at 09:13 PM.

  27. #26

    Default

    Its something that the Supreme Court has never clarified.

    I agree, Teds father was not a US Citizen. In my interpretation...the only person who Ted could then get Citizenship from is his Mother....who it seems either renounced her citizenship or was also a Canadian Citizen.

    I personally dont think he is eligible.

    Obama...i think he was born in Hawaii to an American mother, thus a natural born citizen....but his youth growing up in Indonesia and in the care of known Communists; that should have sent off red alarms to any and every American.

    Honestly....if you ever renounce your Citizenship or claim Duel Citizenship, you should be exempt from Natural Born Status....

    But as you can see, this is an incredibly complex topic in Constitutional Law

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertas Aut Mortis View Post
    Its something that the Supreme Court has never clarified.
    . . .
    But as you can see, this is an incredibly complex topic in Constitutional Law
    It is not complex at all . . . Cruz wants to muddle the issue and make it complex.
    No more complex than an Immigration and Naturalization Service deportation hearing I guess.

    In 1789, by Madison's analysis in the South Carolina election to the new federal legislature,
    the Canadian-born dual citizen would not have been eligible for even the legislature.

    Cruz says the 1790 Naturalization Act applies to him, whereas every court would say wtf?
    It was even changed in 1795 to Cruz' further disadvantage in his creative interpretation of the constitution's President Eligibility Clause.

    Cruz can not admit he was naturalized as a US dual citizen, his status until 2014.
    He was elected to the US Senate as only a dual citizen, by international law conscriptable from every corner of the globe by Canada
    until he renounced his Canadian-by-birth citizenship.


    .
    Last edited by Jan2017; 02-19-2016 at 08:24 AM.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    It is not complex at all . . . Cruz wants to muddle the issue and make it complex.
    No more complex than an Immigration and Naturalization Service deportation hearing I guess.

    In 1789, by Madison's analysis in the South Carolina election to the new federal legislature,
    the Canadian-born dual citizen would not have been eligible for even the legislature.

    Cruz says the 1790 Naturalization Act applies to him, whereas every court would say wtf?
    It was even changed in 1795 to Cruz' further disadvantage in his creative interpretation of the constitution's President Eligibility Clause.

    Cruz can not admit he was naturalized as a US dual citizen, his status until 2014.
    He was elected to the US Senate as only a dual citizen, by international law conscriptable from every corner of the globe by Canada
    until he renounced his Canadian-by-birth citizenship.


    .
    In other words friend dispute what Teddy Harper Cruz says he is still a Canadian by birth and Canadian inborn. Even with all this i dont think he is eligible. If anything dems would be using this ineligible, and his Canadian birth as a tactic in the general election.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    Full citizens that do not meet requirements of a US citizen living abroad lose more rights and privileges when renouncing that US citizenship.
    Her partial/dual citizenship causes the most problems when she disregards US laws.

    But even allowing the mom consideration as a full US citizen, albeit disregarding US law,
    Ted only got naturalized with derivative citizenship through one parent.
    You keep making the claim about dual citizenship for his mother but present zero evidence she ever had it or applied for it. When did she apply for Canadian citizenship? According to their rules, even if she applied as soon as she was eligible, her son would have already been born (they have a six year residency requirement before one can even apply- she went to Canada in 1967 so she could have applied in 1973- three years AFTER the birth of her son Ted in 1970). They moved back to the US in 1974- before any such paperwork could have been processed (it can take two years or more to process).
    "The only thing we have to fear is.... fear itself!" Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
    "Be afwaid. Be berry afwaid" Donald Trump.

    The optimists built this country and made it great- not the fearful. Fear can only destroy.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  31. #30

    Default

    Jan and I disagree slightly to the semantics of all of it...but we reach the same conclusion.

    He isn't eligible.

    Now, lets pretend that he is. Lets say his mother is full blown US Citizen, living in Canada, and that Jan is wrong and that the child doesn't have to physically be born on us territory.

    There is still a glaring conflict of interest towards a Foreign State that should give us all pause. Just as Obama had connection to Indonesia, Cruz has connection to Canada.

    And, perhaps more importantly, both his and Rubio's disdain from Cuba is a direct result of their family connections to Cuba. It prevents reasonable and constructive diplomacy from taking place.

    "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." - Washington's Farewell Address

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast





Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •