Ted Cruz is not Eligible to be POTUS
Posted by deleted 8 years, 1 month ago to Politics
Please, if anyone has direct links to legislation that repeals or amends this bill, please let me know. According to Wikipedia the bill is still law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...
What this means is that Ted Cruz is NOT eligible to be the POTUS by any stretch of the imagination.
An update to the post, I have removed the video, working on a different version at the moment that provides more clarity to something that is utterly confusing for many people, specifically how a natural born citizen could also be a citizen of another country. Sadly there will be those who believe that natural born means anything but one who is born of two parents who are citizens of the US, who owe no allegiances to other countries at the time of their birth and were born in territory controlled by the US.
What this means is that Ted Cruz is NOT eligible to be the POTUS by any stretch of the imagination.
An update to the post, I have removed the video, working on a different version at the moment that provides more clarity to something that is utterly confusing for many people, specifically how a natural born citizen could also be a citizen of another country. Sadly there will be those who believe that natural born means anything but one who is born of two parents who are citizens of the US, who owe no allegiances to other countries at the time of their birth and were born in territory controlled by the US.
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/W86b3gaRBtY
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/01/11...
http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/...
What it means is the following:
If you are born on US soil, you were under US jurisdiction, therefore eligible for POTUS.
If one or both your parents is a US citizen, when you were born, then you were under US jurisdiction, therefore eligble for POTUS.
Now for me as example. I was born in Iceland to Icelandic parents. I moved to the US when I was four years. I was indoctrinated in US history and taught to be a US citizen. When I turn the US examine, I kill it (It was very easy).
If I was ask who I am, I would say I am American before I am Icelandic. Yet, even through I lived in the US for 32 years and have little to no memory of Iceland. I still am not qualified to run for POTUS. Even though I may be more American that Ted Cruz :/.
Anyway, I hope I clear about the issue of eligibility to the POTUS.
"The case of Minor v. Happersett pretty much has summed up in dicta what the SCOTUS believes "natural-born" to have meant (and supposedly not ever addressed)
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
I don't know about you but for me this pretty much clears it up unless the SCOTUS want's to explicitly take a case and make a ruling which is contrary to what was written in this decision (granted the case was not about natural-born versus non-natural born with respect to what qualifies, it merely pointed out the thinking of the SCOTUS with respect to what was common knowledge).
I understood that a natural born citizen was same as what qualifies you for citizenship at birth. It turns out that I was technically incorrect. The question of what "natural born" citizen has yet to settled. See the Wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_...
this page has a great, if not a bit biased run down of all the challenges and the common theme is dismissed before any evidence is heard. "A lawsuit filed in an Arizona superior court by Kenneth Allen (Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party) alleged that Obama was not a natural-born citizen because his father "was a resident of Kenya and thus a British citizen".[119] Allen argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Minor v. Happersett required a natural-born citizen to be born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents; however, the judge dismissed the suit on March 7, 2012, ruling that "President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution" and that "[c]ontrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett ... does not hold otherwise." Yet again it was dismissed without anyone ever hearing arguments, and while Minor v. Happersett doesn't "require" it, it clearly states the opinion of the SCOTUS that a natural-born citizen IS one who's both parents are citizens at the time of their birth on US soil, and that "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
So if the SCOTUS admits that there are doubts about the second class, then certainly it requires clarification prior to a POTUS meeting that criteria being seated, and of all these cases, at least one freaking judge should have heard the case!!!
So here we are again, with Ted Cruz & Marco Rubio in the same situation, and there has been NO definative clarity given to the situation except that we know for certain, natural-born citizen was recognized by the SCOTUS to be "that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."