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.
Do we, who may support Trump, have any concrete evidence as to his loyalties? After all his favorite words seem to be "horribly", "stupid", "not a nice guy", "first of all", and then there are the stories he tells us and his use of his hands, whose gestures add to the perception of his character but don't tell us much about his inner core beliefs about the why and wherefore's. Trump’s language defies precedent, but he is turning political discourse into reality TV where he is an enigma - as the “anti-politician” when it comes to talking, but not when it comes to business acumen. We know what he thinks of business with China .. but how about what is good for the present day consumer choice and product costs?
You are vetting Trump on his personality, not on his qualification as a natural born citizen. I thought the subject of this discussion was eligibility.
Since Trump is "qualified" to be President according to those who are strict constructionists of the construct of the Constitution ... I still question his loyalties to that Constitution. That's all I was stating .... show me the proof of that inner character, not just the words of ego?
John: Do you ask the other candidates that same question? They use different, more polished more planned out words all written out by some great speech writer. Hmm Obama comes to mind! Methinks you are watching too much TV. You think he made $10B because he didn't know what is good for consumer choice? If so, how do you think he made that $10B? Someone consumed those living units he built, used the shops in his commercial buildings. Seems to me he understands the consumer pretty well. Can you say that about Cruz? Rubio? if so, in what way do they understand? Eh?
Lets put it one the line folks ...
We all know Cruz and all the other Republican candidates have a political track record that can be verified ... but NONE about Donald except his words of such dislike for China business policies. Real investigative journalism would reveal the public record which would show us his stance not just on local issues in NY, but also by his business "deals". I want to KNOW his politics, not just hear his words over and over again at every speech based on emotions at the time. Do we really know Trump ... this may give us a clue to HIS Politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8jfZTC6Mo
OK, John, let's put it on the line. At the same time, remember how well these politicians have worked out for us. His politics are simple, do what we have to do to make America great again. You want to see proof of what his personal politics are? Here you go:
25 years ago, Trump was the same man he is today. Unlike politicians, he doesn't put his finger up to see how the wind is blowing. He makes the wind blow (politically speaking). The VERY FACT that so many want to ruin him is proof positive there is a reason - they are scared witless that he's going to burst their little bubble of corruption, the one YOU talk so much about. And he will! Until the cartels are brought to their knees, corrupt politicians will run the country as they always have. You rail about that all the time but when a non-politician comes along, you rail about that, too. Why do you think a politician is going to fix the problem created by politicians? (shaking my head in wonder)
TO: Reply by John5319
3. There are responsibilities hopefully in the Election Laws and/or the certification of the candidates placed on the ballot. I thought it was the secretary of the state. I sent our secretary of state an e-mail asking her if she certified the eligibility of the candidates, if not who does?
re Patty - No one certifies or vets the presidential candidates. Possibility does exist that a state secretary of state could but none have the guts to try it. Bennet almost came to doing a certify of Obama as not eligible but failed to follow through.
Bingo you've won the GRAND prize!!! Republicans cannot state the principled stance, that has been their problem for the past several general elections where the have alienated the base of conservatism by their actions while in Congress. They talk about slowing government growth and debt ... then vote FOR It.
The Republican leadership told us "impeachment" is off the table because as long as we don't have 67 Republicans (or DINOs who believe in Republican principles) in the Senate, we will never get a conviction: Heck, we couldn't even get Clinton impeached because the Senate couldn't decide the meaning of the word "is," thus rendering all following legislation "void for vagueness." Republicans would be accused of grandstanding instead of getting their work done. (The fact that the "work" in question means sucking up to the Marxist Mafia agenda would be conveniently overlooked.)
The impeachment of Bill Clinton was defeated by Senators who refused to act on the facts of the matter. Fifty senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge, and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no Democrat voted guilty on either charge. Clinton was acquitted, becoming the second sitting United States President to be formally charged with a crime (impeached) and subsequently declared not guilty (acquitted). Thus it was Republicans who sided with the Demon-crats that became known as RINO'S.
But your statement says that Republicans HAVE NO HOPE of ever gleaning a single Demon-crat to our side of the ideological isle. That is the ideology divide in this nation brought on by one half-white/half-black racially divisive President. It is the Demon-crats who are our nations enemy, that we must acknowledge, and fight against ... by whatever means necessary ... including "push polling". Defeat is not an option this time around.