Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
[Editor: Caution - this article is only for those seeking the true answer.]
1. Neither Obama, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz are natural born citizens. At the times they were born, their Fathers were not citizens. Location of birth is irrelevant. Those who insist that a person must be born within the US point to Section 212 of Vattel. But one must read all that Vattel wrote on the subject and which is contained in Sections 213-217.
A “natural born” citizen inherits his citizenship from his parents. Just as he inherits his eye and hair color from them, so he inherits his citizenship status. He is “born” with the hair and eye color his parents gave him, and he is “born” with the citizenship status they gave him. No provision in the Constitution made him a Citizen – no Act of Congress made him a Citizen – just as no provision in the Constitution or Act of Congress determined his eye or hair color. His citizenship, eye color, and hair color are all inherited from his parents. THAT’s what a natural born citizen is. READ all of the sections on this which Vattel wrote: By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular. In my first paper, you can find the links to Vattel and other original source documents illustrating the original intent of “natural born citizen”.
2. Our first generation of Presidents were all born as subjects of the British King. There were no US citizens until July 4, 1776 when we proclaimed our Independence. Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 contains a grandfather clause which permitted our first batch of Presidents to qualify. They were citizens at the time of the Adoption of our Constitution.
3. It appears that both of Donald Trump’s Parents were Citizens at the time he was born. It is irrelevant that his Mother was an immigrant: She came here from Scotland; and later became a US Citizen during 1942 – several years before Donald was born. Donald is a natural born citizen eligible to be President. [But because of the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at the time of our Framing, the status of Donald’s Mother is probably irrelevant.]
4. I found another article on this topic which is excellent: http://www.latimes.com/…/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-…
5. Our Country would be so much better off if people would stop spouting off about this subject until after they become well-informed. And they can’t become well-informed until they have studied this carefully using original source documents and read all the original source documents I cite in my first paper.
And you must detach the result you want from your thinking when you are studying. TRUTH sheds its own Light – and you will NEVER get that Light until you love TRUTH above all things including the outcome you want. I am well aware of the disgraceful cases where peoples’ views on this issue are determined by whom THEY want for President.
Read more on Publius-Huldah's Blog
For another view, see Horse Sense:
If Ted truly understood leadership and integrity he'd have been proactive on this issue. When it came up he would have made a public statement saying something like: "While I believe I am a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be president, to put everyone's mind at ease I am going to seek a declaratory judgment from the court to settle this once and for all and put people's minds at ease. I love America and the Constitution and I am willing to abide by the decision of the court, even if it ultimately means I would have to drop out of the race."
That's what a leader and person of integrity does. They are proactive and do what's right regardless of the cost to themselves.
If he believes he's right, he should have nothing to fear. If he prevailed with the court it would preclude anyone from bringing the issue up any longer. But by not getting that from the court, it simply allows his attackers to continue to raise the issue and even litigate it. And if he's the nominee, it takes credibility away from him during the general election, which is the worst time it could happen.
But when Cruz doesn't do that, he's raising questions about his integrity no matter how this comes out. To double down and try to belittle a competitor (in this case Trump) with Alinsky-like responses designed to put doubt on the questioner, not answer the question, simply reduces his credibility.
Bull! There is no reason for Cruz to have to go to Court to prove something he already knows for a fact and Trump should be ashamed for trumping up this as an issue. As far as "belittling" Trump, he does a great job of doing that to himself in my opinion.Trump is bringing this up to try and sway votes. He could care less about the issue for any other reason. I am not a Cruz supporter, although I like and respect him and would vote for him if he were the nominee, but those who are solid Trump supporters are blinded to anything negative about Trump. For example, calling Cruz a "nasty" guy is pure politics. It's a personal attack plain and simple.I hate this type of politics, and thought many of you did too. Bottom line here is the Obama , Rubio and Cruz are eligible to be President. If Obama were not, the Courts would have said so by now. I'm now saying the Courts are always right (far from it) but the writer of this article seems to feel the entire matter should weigh on a Court decision. This should be a non-issue. If Trump is the nominee I will vote for him, but he is my last choice. I just hope all conservatives will vote for the Republican nominee because all of them would be better than Clinton.
Trump didn't originate this discussion. Please pay attention. The Washington Post raised the question in an interview after several other media had already raised it, unlike what they did on Obama. It's a legit question exactly as it was when Obama ran. The Horse Sense guy nailed it: those who are married to their own candidate will not accept facts. Of course, Cruz should go to court. Of course, it should have gone to court when Obama did the same as Cruz. Of course the courts are all liberal progressives! Besides, courts don't take laws to court. Lawyers do. If you did real research, you would see that Cruz is NOT who he says he is. Rubio is hand picked by the Chamber of Commerce. Research. Research. Vattel's law if from the 1700's and was the "law" that the Founders relied on as their guide when they put that clause in the Constitution. It appears no where else in the Constitution, there for a purpose. Get a grip, girl.
No need to talk down to me. I'm fine in my own skin and I stand by what I said. I'm sure you will love to know that I am a Rubio supporter :)))))
Joy - Sorry to have to say - Cuz is not a natural born citizen. But take courage from the fact that NO ONE or any institution will do a good job of vetting any presidential candidate. That is what happened in 2008 for Obama. There were eight attempts in an effort to declare Obama a natural born citizen. It all failed as Obama born a citizen with a father a British Subject citizen of Kenya. Also in 2008 a Senate resolution declared McCain, born in Panama WAS a natural born citizen because both McCain's parents were U.S. citizens.
If we do not stop here the precedence will be set and in the future "anchor babies" will be allowed to run for president.
Sorry to say - Rubio is also NOT a natural born citizen as both parents were immigrants and did not became naturalized citizens until later.
And I believe it was brought up at the time that the law making McCain a citizen 'born on U.S. soil" because he was born on a U.S. military base was passed six or eight months after he was born. An issue studiously ignored.
Ahhh! An anchor baby. Neither parent a U.S. Citizen until years after his birth. Top pick (#2 after Jeb) of the establishment RNC and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Yeah. Just what we need. Bush all over again controlled candidate for President. Ewwww!
When The Washington Post brought it up it was a "push poll" agenda plain & simple, and for Republicans to throw gas on that fire started by the liberal media is infuriating at the least.
Why don't these "other media" raise the questions loud and clear about Clintons PRIVATE computer server, the lies of the e-mails, and Benghazi? Because it doesn't fit their agenda ... and this does!
If anything needs to "Get a grip girl" it is how the media, and the GOPe are deflecting and manipulating us from the real issues of HOW America got to where it has been in the last 7 years?? Where is the "summer of recovery"?, Where is "you'll save $2,500 on your insurance premiums"?, "ISIS is the JV team"?, "America is a safer nation"?, "My administration will be the most transparent in history", "Change we can believe in", and "We will fundamentally transform America"? All this as Obama releases empties GITMO so that more terrorists get BACK TO the middle east.
Keep your eye on the target folks, for they have one ON OUR backs while we argue "who did that"?
The natural born issue is of prime importance. We must remember that the POTUS is commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world. The founders looked to the natural law and law of the nations as to provide some assurance of allegiance to this country.
Obama change and hope is all about driving the country many steps closer to being a socialist country. Are the other issues other than Home land security and immigration more important than preserving our republic??
"If Obama were not, the Courts would have said so by now." You seem to have a lot more faith in the Courts than even Thomas Jefferson had, in spite of your recognition that the Courts are not always right. For example, if we could trust the Courts to rule pursuant to the Constitution, we wouldn't have a 16th Amendment sucking the resources out of our nation and our people for the benefit of the international banker cartels we kicked all the way back to the City of London in the American Revolution, because the Amendment was never ratified. (Too many States re-wrote it first and ratified something not proposed.) We wouldn't have a 17th Amendment, either, depriving the States of their suffrage in the Senate and making the federal government the all powerful leviathan it is today, because it, too, was never ratified: Article V requires every State to give Consent to the loss of their suffrage in the Senate, and ten States withheld their Consent. The people on this list need to understand that our nation is suffering a Marxist political insurgency and we are on the verge of destruction as a nation founded upon principles of liberty. It is Marxist because that is what the low-information doofuses are buying, but the perpetrators don't care for political ideology as long as you let them run it.
The courts can only interpret the constitution. I agree 120% with you on the 16th and 17th amendments as a disaster leading to an oligarchy tyrannical leaning federal government. The GOP(e) and the Democrats will never change their interpretation of the constitution. The corruption will continue until the U.S.A. goes down just as Argentina did.
Which would be a greater disaster? - 1) do nothing and watch the republic crumble or 2) the states exercise the constitutional privilege to call a Convention of States to propose for ratification amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
I initated a discussion on anchor babies to be able to run for president in the future. Did you read that?
If we Republicans vote on emotion then we are the same idiots who voted for Obama on "emotion".
It is the facts that we must intelligently interpret within our ONE man-ONE vote Republic. Trump who has emotion behind him, has called Cruz out on LIBERAL NBC this weekend ..."nobody likes him". Question ... Mr. Trump Was that you standing in from of the U.S. Senate ripping the "establishment" for 21 hours straight without a teleprompter? I thought so. Intelligence and understanding comes in many forms of political lip service ... but don't go so overboard with your own ego that you forget the facts ... that you do have to work within the rules of government in the House and the Senate!!
This is crazy. Why would you bring research and facts into this discussion. It denies others the right of spouting their biased twisted perspective with any credibility