Ted Cruz Drops Bombshell: Admits He's Not Constitutionally Eligible To Be President

He's a natural born US citizen just like Rubio and Jindal.

 

So since you now agree with what I wrote before that you criticized me on. Where is the apology?

 

I guess I misunderstood what you wrote... but I thought I was clear before and after your post.

 

Yet it is really legally clear as mud since there are other opinions about the definition of natural born citizen and the reason for all the kerfuffle about it. The only way definite clarification will happen is if SCOTUS has a case that clears it up.

 

They cleared it up 120 years ago.

US v wong Kim ark.

 

Read the statutes.. they have been posted 100 times..

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president/

 

The article from this birther blog seems very unreliable.

Cruz has been grooming himself to be a presidential contender and I can't see him admitting that he's ineligible.

 

The most authoritative founding era definition I know of is found in the Naturalization Act of 1790, and it doesn't square with your first sentence.

As for the eligibility of those born abroad, natural born citizenship was the exclusive domain of the states before 14A, which rescinded such authority WRT those born in the US, but left untouched said authority WRT the foreign born; so federal statutes are not properly viewed as authoritative in this matter.

 

Read the statutes.. you are flailing around in the dark.

 

`
I don't think he had a choice, unless of course he pulled a "Sarah Palin" and started stringing his fans along for their donations.

 

I have. They only matter if they are the exercise of an enumerated or implied power of Congress, and no federal statute conferring natural born citizenship on the foreign born clears that bar.

 

Because Margot knows better than any law professor.

 

If you have American parents or one American parent and you are born overseas... The birth is registered with the nearest US Consulate and the baby is a natural born US citizen.. Thousands of Americans have been born overseas. Read the statutes and quit screwing around with 1790.

 

Not a syllable of this has bearing on anything I said, so thanks for nothing.

 

No law professor would be a birther.. LOLOL

 

Deflection. You know what I am talking about.

 

`
1) Arnold Schwarzenegger knew he could not become president because of Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution. He's smarter than Cruz.

2) The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the "natural born" citizen phrase. However, a non legal 2011 CRS report concluded;

"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."​

Good discussion topic though.

 

I have been told that lies are not relevant in the post if there is evidence that the lie is not the posters but that the poster is simply repeating it. That said this thread is a fail in many ways including the fact that I am pretty sure this was something that was dealt with already and the fact that Ted Cruz will never be President of the United States unless he gets a cabinet position and he is the only one not at the State of the Union one year when aliens come and destroy the Capital Building.

 

And then I informed you of a Supreme Court ruling called wong Kim ark. Which was cited in ankeny v Daniels, specifically naming Obama a natural born citizen.

It's a settled issue.

 

LOL. The OP means the post in general, not calling the poster a liar, gullible maybe.

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant to the point being made.

 

By directly refuting it? You say some really strange things sometimes.

 

Not my problem you can't follow along.

 

I gave you a supreme court ruling which defined it. I gave you a federal court ruling, citing that Supreme Court ruling, ruling Obama was a natural born citizen.

Direct refuting your point. There's nothing to follow.

 

I am not surprised that you don't even know what the case was about. The cited case was about citizens born 'within' the United States.