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

Educated people question the statues of law and if a judge is legislating from the bench.

Have you ever noticed how a federal district judge ruling is overturned by a federal appelet court then the SCOTUS overturns the appelet court rulings ? Interesting isn't it.

 

Come on... you didn't even get the definition of Jurisdiction correct.

 

Statutes change quite frequently, the statute of today was not the statute of yesterday.

Again, one need only look to Wong Kim Ark to understand that Ted Cruz is not a "natural-born" Citizen, he is a citizen by naturalization as controlled by Congress.

Basically he is a naturalized citizen and is unable to qualify for being "natural-born".

Since you liked the word "jurisdiction" so much, which countries jurisdiction was Cruz born under since he was born outside the jurisdiction of the US? Which country does he hold a birth certificate from, since it is not one from the US?

Also note the "contemplates two sources of citizenship", not two types as has been exclaimed.

Cruz is a naturalized citizen per Congressional Act.

 

You can only be naturalized or natural born... and Cruz wasn't naturalized.. His mother was a US citizen.

 

No you didn't.

I use the intent of the Constitution while you think the Constitution is a breathing document that you can change anytime with out a constitutional amendment to further a political agenda.

In this case, if a foreign national still holds loyalty to his country of birth, the United States does not have jurisdiction over the individual. We can not conscript him into the U.S. Army when he crosses the border.

Just like if you travel to Russia today as an American citizen, because the USA still has jurisdiction over you, Putin couldn't conscript you into serving in Russias army.

You are using cultural marxism of changing the definition of words to further a political agenda. When a judge does it. he labeled as an activist judge who legislates from the bench.

 

Of course he could be conscripted.. Thousands or Americans have been born overseas and they are natural born US citizens.. and I am NOT speaking of people born on military bases. My brothers were ALL eligible for the draft during the Vietnam years...

 

Under which jurisdiction was Cruz born? He was born outside the jurisdiction of the US. Cruz was naturalized by Congress through an Immigration Act, without the Act he would have been born an alien. His mothers status passed on derivative citizenship per Congressional Act, The INA of 1940, without it he would not have received US Citizenship.

 

No...... Cruz wasn't nationalized because his mother was a natural born US citizen..

 

His mothers status has no bearing except that she was a US Citizen, just because she was a natural-born citizen within the jurisdiction of the US does not pass on natural-born status to Ted if he is born outside the jurisdiction of the US. Prior to the INA of 1940 Ted would have been born a Cuban Citizen and Canadian Citizen, his mothers status would not have mattered.

So I ask again, under whose "jurisdiction" was Ted born since he was born outside the jurisdiction of the US?

 

Actually , yes she does.

http://canada.usembassy.gov/consular_services/dual-citizenship.html

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

The U.S. Government acknowledges that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter that country. Use of the foreign passport does not put into jeopardy your U.S. citizenship. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship over another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship. Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.

If you are a U.S. citizen who has acquired or plans to acquire Canadian citizenship, and you intend to relinquish your U.S. citizenship or wish to relinquish your U.S. citizenship, please discuss with the U.S. Embassy or Consulate the procedures necessary to formalize this. There will be a US$2,350 fee to document formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship. More information relating to the loss of citizenship is on this Travel.State.Gov information sheet. In addition, please review this page, regarding the making of a citizenship claim.

continued

 

What does this have to do with anything? Nobody is disclaiming Ted is not a dual National/Citizen. Under whose "jurisdiction" was Cruz born since he was born outside the US? This shouldn't be too hard for an educated person such as yourself. Do you even know what derivative citizenship is? http://shusterman.com/americancitizenshipthroughparents.html

 

He was born under Canadian jurisdiction, but his mother was a US citizen.. and she evidently didn't renounce her US citizenship.

 

What part of this are you not understanding?

Again, WKA. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

Ted Cruz citizenship was conferred by Congress through INA's.

 

OK.....so what. That makes Ted a US Citizenship by derivative, his citizenship was passed down by jus sanguinas (the INA of 1940), he was born outside the jurisdiction of the US, thusly he is not "natural-born", it took an Act of Congress to confer citizenship upon him by recognizing jus sanguinas.

Here it is again from WKA

Surely you are educated enough to understand this simple SCOTUS opinion.

 

Did you actually Read United States v. Wong Kim Ark ?

 

I know it inside and out, what part are you having trouble with?

I like this wording from Binney in WKA

Cruz wasn't born within the jurisdiction of the US, he was born in Canada under Canadian jurisdiction on Canadian soil. His US Citizenship was conferred by an Act of Congress (given personally by statute) making him a naturalized citizen.

 

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

 

Really? a Politifact article?

If seems to be the biggest word in life.

More from the article

 

Lol, Cruz was not naturalized. He was a citizen at the time of his birth, which is a natural born citizen.

 

If you are inside the borders of the US you are under US jurisdiction. No other countries laws apply.

The US does not have jurisdiction on anyone outside its borders.

Birthers are retarded.

- - - Updated - - -

Making him a natural born citizen.

- - - Updated - - -

No. He was a citizen at birth. Natural born citizen.

- - - Updated - - -

WKa has no bearing on cruzs citizenship.

 

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

What about when an American citizen travels abroad, does the U.S. government still have jurisdiction over the American ?

You bet they do.

>" Federal law provides “extraterritorial jurisdiction” over certain sex offenses against children. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is the legal authority of the United States to prosecute criminal conduct that took place outside its borders.
Section 2423(c) of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits United States citizens or legal permanent residents from traveling from the United States to a foreign country, and while there, raping or sexually molesting a child or paying a child for sex. Citizens can be punished under this law even if the conduct they engaged in was legal in the country where it occurred. For example, if an individual traveled to a country that had legalized prostitution, and while they were there they paid a child for sex, that individual could still be convicted under this statute. The penalty for this provision is up to 30 years in prison.
Section 2423(b) of Title 18, United States Code, is a similar provision. Section 2423(b) makes it a crime for United States citizens or legal permanent residents to travel from the United States to a foreign country..."<
continue -> http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_trafficking.html

Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries.

>" Any authority can, of course, claim ETJ over any external territory they wish. However, for the claim to be effective in the external territory (except by the exercise of force), it must be agreed either with the legal authority in the external territory, or with a legal authority which covers both territories. When unqualified, ETJ usually refers to such an agreed jurisdiction, or it will be called something like "claimed ETJ".
The phrase may also refer to a country's laws extending beyond its boundaries in the sense that they may authorise the courts of that country to enforce their jurisdiction against parties appearing before them in respect of things that they did outside that country. This does not depend on the co-operation of other countries, since the affected people are within the relevant country (or their case is being heard by a court of that country). For example, many countries have laws which give their criminal courts jurisdiction to try prosecutions for piracy or terrorism committed outside their national boundaries. Sometimes such laws only apply to nationals of that country, and sometimes they may apply to anyone..."<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction

 

A citizen by birth as conferred by Congress under naturalization laws, which is not a natural born citizen

 

He was naturalized by Congressional Acts, he is not natural born.

He may be a citizen at birth due to his Congressional conference as to his birth outside US jurisdiction, that does not make him natural born.

And yet you were the one who originally referred to WKA in this very thread. Even WKA points out US law regarding children born outside the jurisdiction of the US. Both you and Margot were the ones railing of the word jurisdiction.

Look at that Page 2 comment 11

So is WKA now not applicable, yet everything I quoted comes directly from WKA.

I specifically like it when you stated this little gem on page 2 comment 20

 

Cruz should 'cruz' to Hawaii where he can be 'born' again.

 

Here you claimed that this was resolved 120 years ago

You've either demonstrated complete ignorance of WKA or you must be

or a