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

Of course its not. Funny how you exclaim things without ever providing a source to back up your inane beliefs.

You cited it originally - WKA, whats the matter, your own cite now is no good?

It really doesn't, you exclaiming things doesn't change that fact.

He was naturalized by way of Congressional conference as has been explained/shown to you numerous times. Your dibelief doesn't change reality.

The only one being dishonest is you, again from your WKA link

Keep denying your own cite/link and reality. This paragraph, by itself, makes all your comments irrelevant and shows your dishonesty to be what it is, inept.

No he wasn't, he didn't become a citizen until he completed the requirement of living in the US for 5 years prior to his becoming 16 y.o. per the INA of 1952.

I fear you have no actual understanding of what legal weight is, of course the bible has no legal weight, and yet the Federalist Papers do as they are part of the founding documents.

 

You are simply repeating refuted arguments.

 

Cruz is a Harvard graduate. If he isn't eligible to run for Pres, why is he wasting everyone's time?

 

It's a round about way for the Chinese parents to gain immigrant status and recieve a immigrant visa, green card and social security benefits that they didn't pay into the system.

When the Chinese anchor baby turns 18 years of age, he's able to petition the government to have his or her parents jump in front of the immigration line and issued an immigration visa under our stupid chain migration laws.

Remember those 3 million illegal aliens that were rewarded amnesty in 1986 ? From 6 to 10 million of their relatives back in Mexico were issued immigration visas under chain migration. Those are usually those Mexican legal immigrants you come across. Many were over 62 years of age, never worked a day in America and were collecting social security benefits with in months after legally coming to America under chain migration.

 

If government did not exist at all then everyone would be a natural born citizen of the land where they were born. That is an inalienable (natural) right of the person that exists without the existance of government. That is exactly what the term "natural born citizen" means. It is the citizenship established by "nature" based upon where a person is born not dependent upon any other person (e.g. parents) or by the statutory definitions created by government. It has always meant that and was commonly understood when Article II of the Constitution was written.

Natural born citizenship is based upon Jus Soli (i.e. the "Right of Land").

 

In America we don't hold loyalty to any individual monarch (king, Queen) as English Common Law says you do.

The U.S. Constitution is based upon the Law of Nature, not English Common Law. We fought a war to distance ourselves from English Common Law.

 

Citizenship is a legal concept. If there is no government, there is no citizenshil.

There is no such thing as natural rights. All rights are legal/man made constructs.

It doesn't. It simply means citizen at birth.

Nature doesn't establish citizenship. It is a legal classification. All citizenship is conferred by statute or law.

It has never meant that.

Partially. It is also attained by jus sanguinas. Or by both.

- - - Updated - - -

200+ years of case law disagrees.

 

Thomas Jefferson argued that "expatriation" (i.e. immigration from one's native country to another country) was an inalienable right of the person that could not be violated by government.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/6152-your-daily-jefferson

Not only was it a right of the person but if laws existed, even if passed by the will of all the people of a nation, that the individual had the authority to exercise that "right to immigrate" by any "effectual and unequivcocal act ot declaration."

In short, according to Thomas Jefferson, every person has a right to ignore our immigration laws and "illegally" immigrate to the United States based upon their "Right of Expatriation" that is an inherent right superseding the authority of law. They have the right to commit that effectual and unequivcocal act in defiance of our immigration laws.

The greatest mystery of all is why there are any Americans that would oppose anyone wanting to come to the United States to share in our political ideology based upon Liberty and Freedom. We should be proud of our political ideology based upon Liberty and Freedom and welcome all of those that want to share it with us.

If we have a problem it's with those American citizens like Ted Cruz that reject our political ideology of Liberty and Freedom.

 

John Jay seems to have looked at it differently. Vattel's "Law of Nations" was always sitting in front of him when he was the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.

 

Vattels law of nations has no legal weight. Nor did it contain the phrase natural born citizen until 10 years after the constitution was ratified.

 

There were no federal immigration laws untill the 1870's. The Constitution states that an immigrant had to pay an immigration tax.

Before the 1870's it was the individual states that regulated immigration.

For example during the 1850's there was a crime wave in San Francisco and it was white Australian immigrants who were committing most of the crimes. So all immigration of white Australians was forbidden in California. The Aussie could legally migrate by entering the United States through Texas, New York, etc. but not California.

 

§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§ 214. Naturalization.

A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise...

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

 

Then apparently there is no argument for the existance of government at all as there are no "inalienable rights of the person" for government to protect.

In some countries that's unquestionably true but it merely reflects a violation of the natural right of citizenship. In point of fact, while citizenship is often referred to based upon the legal authority of government over a territory a person would still be a citizen of that territory without government. Laws can either recognize that citizenship, ignore citizenship completely, or violated that citizenship.

Jus sanguinas is unrelated to an "inalienable right" as an inalienable right cannot be dependent upon another person. Jus Soli is not dependent upon another person and fully meets the criteria of an inalienable right. The Right of Citizenship based upon Jus Soli is "inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the rights of another person, and imposed no involuntary obligations on another person" which is the criteria of a "natural (inalienable) right" of the person.

In fact it does not and the US Supreme Court extensively addressed the natural born citizenship of a person in the United States v Kim Wong Ark.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

In it's review and opinion it addresses the understanding of "natural born citizen" based upon original intent in Article II, the 14th Amendment, as well as the historical common laws of England and Western European societies that addressed "subjects" of the monarch which was the foundation for the understanding when the Constitution was ratified.

 

Already refuted.

 

Before you can refute you have to have some knowledge of the Constitution and the intent of the authors of the Constitution.

 

So we have a Harvard graduate (Cruz) who is confused about his eligibility? LOLOLOL

Where did you get your JD?

 

Government protects the rights society has deemed they want protected.

All citizenship is a legal construct. If there is no government, there is nothing to be a citizen of.

There is no inalienable right to citizenship as there is no such thing as natural rights. It is a legal construct.

See above.

jus soli is entirely dependant upon another person. If the mother is not physically present inside US Borders jus soli can't apply.

It only addressed birth within the US. Natural born status outside the U.S. is addressed in the statutes.

right. It has no relevance to birth outside the US. That's where the statutes come into play.

 

I will never vote for someone who graduated from Harvard.

 

I do. I'm not the one who thinks a book written by a Swiss philosopher has legal weight. Especially on natural born citizenship, when he never wrote the words natural born citizen in the law of nations.

 

Here's a point I would make. If Republicans can't come up with a better presidential candidate that Ted Cruz then not only is the Republican Party in trouble, the United States is in trouble.

This "digging at the bottom of the political barrel" by both the Republican and Democratic party is really what creates the greatest danger to our Republic.

 

MOD EDIT - Reply to Deleted
- - - Updated - - -

The United States is already in trouble. It's been in trouble now for six years.

 

Strawman much ? I never claimed any such thing ?

 

We need a cite or link to this claim, something more than you exclaiming something to be something when it has been shown to be quite the opposite of your exclamation.

 

Not to anyone who understands the relevant constitutional provisions, it couldn't.

Dunno what this has to do with anything. Clearly every sovereign nation is entitled to make rules determining who is a natural born citizen and who is not, regardless of birthplace. In the original Constitution, the People implicitly ceded that authority to the several states. In the 14A citizenship clause, the People reserved to Themselves that authority as it applied to those born in country, but left intact the authority of states to determine the NBC status of children born abroad to its residents.

Obviously no law made pursuant to the naturalization clause can impart natural born citizenship, so if you think Congress is authorized to make a law conferring natural born citizenship on the foreign born you are welcome to cite the constitutional provision(s) vesting such authority.

You do understand that 14A establishes no criteria by which natural born citizenship may be conferred on the foreign born, right?

 

Again, we need a cite or link showing this, not just your exclaiming something to be when it has been demonstared to not be.

Wong Kim Ark, nuff said.

No, it doesn't.

He wasn't a citizen until he met the requirements as set forth by Congress through naturalization as he was not born within the US. You do understand what "born within" means, right? To this point you haven't even demonstrated the competency to understand it.

So you think SCOTUS Opinion means nothing, I guess Justice Gray doesn't know what he is talking about and Rahl is greater than the Supreme Court Justices both in knowledge and in legalise.

According to US law he was not, as has been demonstrated to you and your cheerleader over and over and over and over and over........

You are now demonstrating that you have no understanding of the term "legal weight".