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

`
Correct me if I'm wrong but Sarah Palin never had any intention of running in 2012 but wanted the money to keep coming into her SARAH PAC.

 

I eventually got to where you stated that, after I had already replied to the comments prior to it.

No, Jus Soli makes you "Natural-born", Jus Sanguinas makes you an acquired citizen, your status would be passed down and you would be born on foreign soil and subject to the foreign countries birth laws.

There are 3 types, Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinas, and Naturalization.

He acquired his citizenship, he was not natural born.

Again, there are 3 types, Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinas, and Naturalization.

And yet Jus Sanguinas is different than Jus Soli. So obviously there is a difference between being born a citizen and being born a natural-born citizen.

 

All "Jus Soli" and "Jus Sanguinis" are, are different methods by which someone can be a citizen at birth -- i.e., a natural-born citizen. There is no status distinction between someone who is a natural-born citizen because of Jus Soli, and one who is a natural-born citizen because of Jus Sanguinis.

Born on U.S. soil, regardless of citizenship status of your parents (with a few specific exceptions, like the child of a foreign ambassador)? natural-born via Jus Soli.

Born outside the country, with at least one parent a U.S. citizen? natural-born via Jus Sanguinis.

It's not rocket science. Only birthers pretend that the two result in different kinds of citizenship, and birthers are morons.

 

Forgive me i am wrong but she is not the only person to do that, it happens in every election.

 

You do understand that this link is to a blog, which really holds NO relevance, is discussing Obama's birth within the US, and is merely claiming that to be born a natural-born citizen, one need only be born within the US to parents that are legally within the US, right. This has absolutely nothing to do with Cruz or being born outside the US on foreign soil. Obama's birth was a jus soli birth to a mother that was a US Citizen and a father that was legally allowed into the US on visa, thus Obama was born a "natural-born" citizen.

 

And yet there are, jus sanguinas is passing down status, it is an acquired status, it is not a natural status. Jus sanguinas birth relies also on the foreign countries laws, the child born holds an allegiance to the other country.

Exactly.

Not natural-born, jus sanguinas is an acquired status.

To you it must be rocket science then. What does "birtherism" have to do with Ted Cruz? There is no known case of a President being born outside the US and becoming President (except for here: 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), if you have any evidence to the contrary, please point it out.

 

Nope. Either or both makes you a natural norn citizen. Other countries laws have no effect on US citizenship law.

Nope. You won't find any mention of 3 types of citizen anywhere in any U.S. law or court case.

He acquired it via birth. That is a natural born citizen.

There aren't. You can't support this argument with anything in U.S. law or any court ruling.

there isn't. Only 2 types of citizen in US law.

 

Uh, no. It's a blog yes, but links directly to supporting court rulings.

Not discussing Cruz. But the Parents legal status is completely irrelevant if born on US soil.

 

Other countries laws have absolutely no effect on US citizenship law.

All citizenship is acquired. Jus sanguinas is natural born status. Sorry.

place of birth is irrelevant if at least one parent Is a citizen

 

Again, only birthers attempt to pretend this distinction is meaningful with regards to "natural born" status, and birthers are morons.

Other country's laws are irrelevant. North Korea could decide tomorrow to grant irrevocable NK citizenship to all American citizens. That would not suddenly render American citizens "not natural born". It would not suddenly give all Americans an allegiance to NK.

We cannot control what other countries do. We can only control how we confer citizenship. We do not currently differentiate between Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis citizenship; both are "natural born."

You can claim this all day. The actual laws governing citizenship disagree with you. Demonstrating, once again, that birthers are morons.

This comeback makes no sense. Not surprising; birthers are morons.

Um... you're attempting to argue that Cruz isn't eligible to be president because he's not a "natural born" citizen, according to your crocked definition of the term. That is birtherism.

Um, so? What does that prove? Until Obama was elected, we had never had a black president. That didn't mean blacks weren't eligible to be president.

Here's a great little example of why the "we've never..." argument is a laughable fallacy:
http://xkcd.com/1122/

 

A child born on foreign land is subject to that foreign nations laws. http://www.law-pedia.com/jus-sanguinis.htm

I then wonder why the US recognizes, jus soli, jus sanguinas, and naturalization?

That is not a "natural-born" citizen. as the child holds allegiance to the country in which he was birthed. His effective citizenship will depend upon the jurisdiction within which he happens to be in; in the United States he is a US citizen; in France, a Frenchman; in any other country he is both.

And yet I have.

It all has to do with the way it was acquired, i.e., naturally (jus soli), blood or inherited (jus sanguinas), or requested (naturalized).

 

It sure does, that doesn't change the fact that it has no bearing what so ever on anything about Ted Cruz, nor does it at any time discuss Ted Cruz.

This topic is about Cruz, everything being discussed is about Cruz, why you keep reverting to Obama is beyond me.

 

Right, they have an effect on the person born within their own countries. So, a child born to one US Citizen abroad would be born under the country of birth as a natural born, and would then acquire the US Citizenship status by inheritance, thus not a natural born us citizen.

Jus sanguinas is an inherited/acquired status, jus soli is a natural status by being born within the realm or quite simply on the soil. Per WKA.

To grant citizenship, I agree.

 

But OUR citizenship laws are unaffected. The child is still a natural born citizen.

They don't. They recognize citizen at birth, and citizen via naturalization. Jus soli and jus sanguinas are 2 seperate mechanisms for natural born citizen. either one or both confers NBC status.

It is. I'm sorry you don't like that, but it's settled US law.

Irrelevsnt to US law.

Nope. You have cited no law or court ruling supporting you. I've refuted you with both.

Nope. And you can't cite any law or ruling supporting you.

 

So you misrepresented it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well whoopty damn doo.

Why the hell do you think I called you out on it to begin with, Brainiac?

Not the Marbury court, obviously.

 

Which was t the topic being debated.

You chimed in on a discussion about Obama, and vattels law of nations.

 

But not their U.S. citizenship status.

Nope.

Nope.

But you're wrong. Demonstrably wrong. The statutes are perfectly clear.

 

The shear ignorance of this statement is hilarious.

OK.....

We do differentiate, we recognize both births and what each ones allegiances are.

More stupidity and ignorance.

Typical.

No, according to your ignorance it is birtherism.

A martian has never been elected either, does that make it eligible?

And.....this has to do with what exactly? Cruz was born owing allegiance to Canada, your little cartoon doesn't touch upon any of that. imjusayn

 

We don't. Either is a NBC.

Allegiance simpy means subject to jurisdiction. Cruz is a an NBC. I'm sorry you don't like that, but you've been thoroughly disproven.

 

Those mystical beings in black robes have not ignored the question, they are astutely aware and have taken great measures to insure it stays away from them. The path to the Supreme Court is long and arduous where one can be derailed anywhere along the path.

So an assertion that first, it has been ignored for two centuries is absolutely ludicrous, there has been no question until 2008. The question only belongs to the qualification of a president or vice president. There has never been a reason to even consider until Odumbo and McCain. Imagine, two at the same time, just purely flaunting the issue.

Second, the assertion that it's not really a question is a truly false assumption within your context. There was no question during the initial period as they fully understood the meaning and it's origin. But just the same, the first congress provided the answer that it being ignored. So the dichotomy is not the question but why the masses chose to ignore the implication of the whole issue.

 

Well it would seem that your very response indicates confusion on a mass scale. And it would seem that confusion is representative of a large majority.

But as in the past, to keep repeating the same thing over and over does not turn a false assumption into a true assumption. Let me clarify, to this point you keep posting the same tired reference with no understanding of that reference. Within that reference, you have failed to post not only any facts but an analogy as to why those facts would support your ill-formed supposition. In essence:

 

Meanwhile, you can't cite any law or court ruling supporting you. I've done both. I've even given you a ruling specifically about obama.

It continues to suck to be a birther.

 

Your assumptions on the law are not only naive but shows a total lack of understanding with the whole concept of the legal system.

First, the only law that is settled is natural law, that which does not emanate from man, it is the realm of nature. Natural law as it applies to the violation of the rights of another are described as malum in se, a wrong in itself, an act that is inherently and essentially evil, like theft. Natural law is immutable, never waving, always the same.

However, the laws of man by their very nature are not immutable, ever waving and in a state of constant change. These laws are in the form of statutes and if they duplicate natural law are redundant and are but an attempt at asserting an illusion in the dominion of authority. However, most statutes are within the realm of malum prohibitum, the concept of someone that thinks they have the right to insist another follow their dictates, the diseased psyche that they are a god.

Within that scope, we have the legal system, a system formulated by those members of the bar, the ones the founders warned us about. They have developed a system whereas all the acts or bills passed by the legislature, written by bar members, as so vague as to require the services of one of those legal giants of the bar system, a lawyer, as members outside the system can never understand the complexities of statutes.

Therein lies the rub because it takes mystical being in black robes, also magical bar members, to listen to arguments and offer opinions, yes opinions as nothing in man's law is concrete. However, other mystical beings may disagree and change those opinions, sort of like if you don't like the price or product at this store, go on to the next one. Even the supreme being in black robes can't make a decision but just offer opinion by majority vote, democracy in action. The question to ask at this point is why do juries have to be unamious but panels of black robed actors only have to be the majority. Because the panel of black robes have no authority to decide, only to issue opinions. It is the idiocy of the masses that misunderstand this whole concept.

Ah, the coup de grace. When one wants to not address an issue, design a system whereas issues not wanting to be addressed can never find a path to be decided. The creed of the Supreme Court.

 

Another parrot. Don't care what they define, they have no meaning. They are not within the powers granted and powers cannot be assumed. Congress is only empowered to define the rules to naturalization, i.e., how foreigners may enter and gain citizenship in this country, no other.

And I could care less what Cruz's mother did, that matters only to Teddy. But thanks to her Teddy had the right to be a citizen without having to go through the naturalization process and to even rise to be a US Senator.

- - - Updated - - -

Dare say, no threat form that angle.

 

Read the statutes and you can avoid all this embarrassing circular ignorance.