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

You have actually done none of the above. It seems the style would be to keep repeating the same dead facts to convince somebody of something by rote, perhaps yourself. If you have so firmly finally convinced yourself, why not present something other than references, like a discussion of the merits and facts of the references.

Until you can discuss facts and merits, you have no understanding nor standing in law, dismissed for failure to state a cause for which a remedy can be applied.

 

See, no this seems to point to the fact you are possibly blind.

 

Both of those cases deal with children born within the US, to parents that are either Citizens already (Obama's Mother) or to persons legally domiciled within the US (WKA Parents and Obama's Father).

You are taking to cases out of their context and applying them beyond their holding.

And WKA defines it through other previous cases as being born within the US.

You lie is only half right, a natural-born citizen was born to citizen parents or persons within the US in amity

The definition of Natural Born can not be changed, the definition requires one to be born within the sovereignty of the US, i.e. US States, outside military bases, and I believe US Embassies.

 

FindLaw, seriously. No I prefer 1 Craunch 137, the original 1803 volume and as reported in 5 US 137, where I have also read it. I have also shepardization law on LexisNexis. But you can also use West Law, the competitor of LexisNexis.

No those aren't the questions that are valid as the commission had already been signed by the John Adams and the seal affixed by James Madison.

The second question is also moot because it is always understood that where there is a right, there is always a remedy when that right has been violated.

If that would be your conclusion, then I would question your ability to read case law. Those were just the stage setters as the real question was a writ of mandamus in order for Madison.

The real issue so eloquently stated by Marshall:

"Is it in the nature of the transaction? Is the act of delivering or withholding a commission to be considered as a mere political act, belonging to the executive department alone, for the performance of which entire confidence is place by our constitution in the supreme executive; and for any misconduct respecting which, the injured individual has no remedy?"

This is where he begin the dressing down of Madison.

But being you are so astute in statutes perhaps you can finish the rest and tell me why the statutes you so adamantly keep trying to assert as meaningless? Ah, by the way it goes beyond this case.

 

Cruz attained his citizenship through jus sanguinas (Mother was US Citizen living in Canada, and birthed in Canada), Rubio and Jindal attained their citizenship through jus soli (parents were in the US legally). Only jus soli makes one a natural-born Citizen.

http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

 

If the child is born on foreign land the child may acquire citizenship through jus sanguinas and is merely a citizen, if the child is born on US sovereign land, military base in foreign nation, US Embassy in foreign nation, etc. than that child acquired citizenship through jus soli and is a natural-born citizen.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/us-citizenship-birth-parents-29750.html

 

Does the US Constitution extend beyond the borders of the US? Cruz was born in Canada, on foreign soil, and acquired citizenship through his mother, he is not a "natural-born" citizen as he received citizenship by jus sanguinas, and not jus soli.

 

Try reading it some time. It is a paraphrase from that case, the same part used by the Supreme court in Nat. Fedn. of Indep. Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 567 U.S. 1, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450 (2012), yes Obamacare.

If you read the case, this becomes quite evident, the court.

It had many designers but only that was acknowledged as the "Father of the Constitution" and principle author. But can't forget the one most forgotten Grovernor Morris that was in charge of the committee for the final draft. By the way, it was Jefferson in Paris that conned Madison in being the principle author.

 

Duh, are you trying to make an intelligent argument here? Just what are you talking about? First, start by reading the constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 and then go from there. Then read Marbury v Madison, your statutes are void on their face.

 

Actually neither are, it is just another usurpation used by the elite to demonstrate that the masses are idiots and will defend anything. So far it has worked extremely well.

But that still does not make it a fact.

 

The statutes define who is born a citizen, and they break that down to how it is acquired.

 

You absolutely have no clue as to the state of the nation, much less this issue, do you? Starting with GW and that false dichotomy of 2001, the elite by way of their puppets in the legislative, executive and judicial branches have increasing removed the rights of the people little by little. Now that openly flaunt at just how far their attempt at the dumbing down of this nation has worked.

Well, it seems well beyond expectations. Did you know the president only costs a billion? Well in 2016 it may be one and a half billion.

 

That 1790 INA was repealed and replaced with the 1795 INA and changed by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen..

 

You keep saying that, are you a parrot that just repeats things over and over and over? Well, like with a parrot, it makes noise but it hasn't a clue what the noise means.

But in this case you refute an act of Congress as they accepted it. Do you have anything other than conjecture to substantiate your position? Of course you don't.

Again, the same squawk, same useless noise, no real meaning. Marbury v Madison has relevance to any statute, especially the ones on citizens.

They can't disagree by Marbury v Madison and American Jurisprudence Volume 16. But they have a vested interest so they try unless they can't. One must direct the court to prevent them from straying.

Squawk, squawk, squawk, Polly want a cracker?

 

Squawk, squawk, squawk.

Where, I seemed to have missed a real argument with all these birds and crackers flying around.



Wow, there went another one, dang that was a mean one.

 

Nothing has ever been decided one way or the other and never will. If it makes it to the Supreme Court, the owners will not be happy so it never will. Rant, rave, jump, cry, or shout, it changes nothing.

And there can be no statutes outside rules for naturalization but that is also moot as it will never be heard as again, the elite would be very unhappy. Rant, rave, jump, cry, or shout, it changes nothing.

And you citizenship could be in question depending on why your parents were in Canada. If they maintained their citizenship all it well. If they renounced, your Canadian.

 

`
Within the context of my remark, "pulling a Sarah Palin" refers to this: In an interview with ABC’s “The View,” presidential candidate Jon Huntsman rebuked former Gov. Sarah Palin for “stringing people along” as she decided whether to run for president. It was merely a sarcastic statement.

 

No. There are only 2 types of citizen. Natural born and naturalized. There is no mysterious 3rd type.

- - - Updated - - -

It's been true since 1898. Sorry.

 

You don't understand Marbury v Madison .. It has NOTHING to do with US citizenship.

 

Hilarious, since about 12 people in the country are as deluded as you are. While the entire congress, entire judiciary and the overwhelming majority of the voting population agrees with me.

 

You, like every birther before you, have been thoroughly refuted.

 

If you read back through the thread, you will see there were 2 different discussions going on. I was mistakenly citing cases supporting obamas citizenship while my opponent was discussing Cruz.

of course the definition can be changed.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Either or both makes you a natural born citizen.

- - - Updated - - -

No. There are only 2 types of citizen. Natural born or naturalized. That's it. There is no mysterious 3rd type.

- - - Updated - - -

He was a citizen upon his birth, which is a natural born citizen.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, birthers

- - - Updated - - -

A born citizen is a natural norn citizen. There are not 3 types of citizen. Only 2.

- - - Updated - - -

Moronic rant having no relevance or effect on anything I posted.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no difference between born a citizen and natural born citizen.

 

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:...ural-born-citizenship-and-the-law-of-nations/

Marbury has no relevance to this topic.

Marbury has no relevance. And of course they can disagree. They aren't moronic birthers inventing a made up definition of natural born citizen, which has never existed in the entire history of the U.S. or England. English common law being where we got the term to begin with.

I know it upsets you to be wrong, but that doesn't make it go away.

 

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:...ural-born-citizenship-and-the-law-of-nations/

Lol, birthers

 

Ahhh ok gotcha! But um is that not the point of running a campaign, to string people along lol?