Topic: Senator Ted Cruz Unveils Obamacare Repeal Act (Read 1847 times)
Well, it looks like the game is on, let's see how many of the republicans are willing to do the right thing. Looks like it's time to go all in and call the democrats bluff and put them back on their heels.
...
I'm unfamiliar with her claim. Is it something outlandish, or are there good reasons to question it?
I'm unfamiliar with her claim. Is it something outlandish, or are there good reasons to question it?
Yeah, it was a complete lie she used to get advantage in getting a university teaching position, and also to get into schools (IIRC). But don't worry, in the aftermath of the Obama presidency and the appeal to lower IQ voters, it'll be trending to advocate the "bad boy" image for candidates.
Of course, Hillary doesn't fit that and Warren sure doesn't look it or fit it. But hey, you gotta work with what you got, right?
....The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.
Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.
Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.
Sounds about right....OKAY, GO BACK TO anti-Cruz polemic, I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of it, but that darn "non citizen" thing, that dog ain't gonna hunt.
I'm not saying non-citizen. My initial post on that matter was one of confusion as I did not have enough understanding of the circumstances of the situation. I feel I have a better understanding now. I accept he's a citizen, a citizen at birth, and very likely a natural born citizen, leaving open only the possibility that a court might decide otherwise. I'm no fan of Cruz, but I wouldn't support any legal challenge to the legitimacy of his presidential candidacy knowing what I know now.
I'm unfamiliar with her claim. Is it something outlandish, or are there good reasons to question it?
....The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.
Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.
Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.
Sounds about right....OKAY, GO BACK TO anti-Cruz polemic, I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of it, but that darn "non citizen" thing, that dog ain't gonna hunt.
I'm not saying non-citizen. My initial post on that matter was one of confusion as I did not have enough understanding of the circumstances of the situation. I feel I have a better understanding now. I accept he's a citizen, a citizen at birth, and very likely a natural born citizen, leaving open only the possibility that a court might decide otherwise. I'm no fan of Cruz, but I wouldn't support any legal challenge to the legitimacy of his presidential candidacy knowing what I know now.
....The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.
Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.
Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.
Sounds about right....OKAY, GO BACK TO anti-Cruz polemic, I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of it, but that darn "non citizen" thing, that dog ain't gonna hunt.
I'm not saying non-citizen. My initial post on that matter was one of confusion as I did not have enough understanding of the circumstances of the situation. I feel I have a better understanding now. I accept he's a citizen, a citizen at birth, and very likely a natural born citizen, leaving open only the possibility that a court might decide otherwise. I'm no fan of Cruz, but I wouldn't support any legal challenge to the legitimacy of his presidential candidacy knowing what I know now.
....The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.
Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.
Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.
Sounds about right....OKAY, GO BACK TO anti-Cruz polemic, I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of it, but that darn "non citizen" thing, that dog ain't gonna hunt.
That idiot will never get this bill passed.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President.
Quote from: US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
NO, this is not an accurate assessment of his status.
http://tedcruztalk.com/2015/01/25/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-run-for-president/
Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz –was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.
So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.
Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.
Constitutional requirements...
Cruz considers himself to be American-born, how quaint! Guess that settles it! "The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is." Well, with such an apparent wealth of sources on the topic, surely you could have posted a couple reputable ones? From what I've found, there is no definitive case law on the definition of "natural born citizen." It doesn't matter what arguments exist, it matters what actual law exists. Since Cruz was not born in the US, perhaps some liberals will challenge him and force him to defend his self-appointed natural born status and a court will finally create a precedent on what "natural born" definitively means. That's even assuming Cruz is viable enough to for people to take his candidacy seriously. (Hahahaha!)
Regarding the actual facts, though, you have a case here of a baby born to a mother who is a US citizen, while in Canada. Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.
Otherwise, why don't we have thousands of babies of US servicemen, stationed in Korea and marrying there, find their babies get draft orders for the South Korean military? Stated in this fashion, you have made a ridiculous argument.
Wikipedia says this:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
Yes, yes, your arguments are understood, but they're nothing more than speculation until actual case law is established. Notice the source "indicates" instead of pointing to case law that actually states. It's not set until it's codified by Congress with a law stating so, or the judiciary through an interpretation of the undefined term "natural born." (Or I suppose in this age of abuse by the executive branch, by executive order.) You can be making a very good guess that's how it will play out, but it's still just a guess.
Also, the citizenship practices of other nations have zero bearing on the citizenship practices of the United States. Your South Korean example is perfectly refuted by the fact that exactly the opposite is true in America.
Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.
Not that it has any bearing on how other nations establish their citizenship requirements, but that's exactly how it works in America. If a foreign soldier is on duty in the United States and gives birth to a child, that child is automatically an American citizen by virtue of being born on US soil. Same for children of illegal immigrants, neither parent has to be an American, if the kid is born on US soil, they are automatically US citizens.
BTW, our conversation has pushed me to look for more information on this topic. I have found the following:
The Immigration and Nationality Act defines what constitutes a "citizen at birth." (It should be noted that this does not mean "natural born" but it is still a separate classification from someone who is a naturalized citizen. It will still take an act of Congress or the Supreme Court to equate "natural born" citizen with "citizen at birth.") Anyway, a "citizen at birth" is 1) anyone born on US soil, 2) a bunch of inapplicable scenarios, and 3):
Quote from: http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date
The relevant portions of this section are: born outside the US after 1952, to one US citizen parent who lived at least 5 years in the US (2 of which were to be after the age of 14) and before the birth of the child. The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.
Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.
Translation: Cruz birtherism is a waste of carbon footprint...
That idiot will never get this bill passed.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President.
Quote from: US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
NO, this is not an accurate assessment of his status.
http://tedcruztalk.com/2015/01/25/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-run-for-president/
Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz –was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.
So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.
Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.
Constitutional requirements...
Cruz considers himself to be American-born, how quaint! Guess that settles it! "The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is." Well, with such an apparent wealth of sources on the topic, surely you could have posted a couple reputable ones? From what I've found, there is no definitive case law on the definition of "natural born citizen." It doesn't matter what arguments exist, it matters what actual law exists. Since Cruz was not born in the US, perhaps some liberals will challenge him and force him to defend his self-appointed natural born status and a court will finally create a precedent on what "natural born" definitively means. That's even assuming Cruz is viable enough to for people to take his candidacy seriously. (Hahahaha!)
Regarding the actual facts, though, you have a case here of a baby born to a mother who is a US citizen, while in Canada. Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.
Otherwise, why don't we have thousands of babies of US servicemen, stationed in Korea and marrying there, find their babies get draft orders for the South Korean military? Stated in this fashion, you have made a ridiculous argument.
Wikipedia says this:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
Yes, yes, your arguments are understood, but they're nothing more than speculation until actual case law is established. Notice the source "indicates" instead of pointing to case law that actually states. It's not set until it's codified by Congress with a law stating so, or the judiciary through an interpretation of the undefined term "natural born." (Or I suppose in this age of abuse by the executive branch, by executive order.) You can be making a very good guess that's how it will play out, but it's still just a guess.
Also, the citizenship practices of other nations have zero bearing on the citizenship practices of the United States. Your South Korean example is perfectly refuted by the fact that exactly the opposite is true in America.
Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.
Not that it has any bearing on how other nations establish their citizenship requirements, but that's exactly how it works in America. If a foreign soldier is on duty in the United States and gives birth to a child, that child is automatically an American citizen by virtue of being born on US soil. Same for children of illegal immigrants, neither parent has to be an American, if the kid is born on US soil, they are automatically US citizens.
BTW, our conversation has pushed me to look for more information on this topic. I have found the following:
The Immigration and Nationality Act defines what constitutes a "citizen at birth." (It should be noted that this does not mean "natural born" but it is still a separate classification from someone who is a naturalized citizen. It will still take an act of Congress or the Supreme Court to equate "natural born" citizen with "citizen at birth.") Anyway, a "citizen at birth" is 1) anyone born on US soil, 2) a bunch of inapplicable scenarios, and 3):
Quote from: http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date
The relevant portions of this section are: born outside the US after 1952, to one US citizen parent who lived at least 5 years in the US (2 of which were to be after the age of 14) and before the birth of the child. The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.
Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.
That idiot will never get this bill passed.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President.
Quote from: US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
NO, this is not an accurate assessment of his status.
http://tedcruztalk.com/2015/01/25/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-run-for-president/
Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz –was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.
So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.
Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.
Constitutional requirements...
Cruz considers himself to be American-born, how quaint! Guess that settles it! "The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is." Well, with such an apparent wealth of sources on the topic, surely you could have posted a couple reputable ones? From what I've found, there is no definitive case law on the definition of "natural born citizen." It doesn't matter what arguments exist, it matters what actual law exists. Since Cruz was not born in the US, perhaps some liberals will challenge him and force him to defend his self-appointed natural born status and a court will finally create a precedent on what "natural born" definitively means. That's even assuming Cruz is viable enough to for people to take his candidacy seriously. (Hahahaha!)
Regarding the actual facts, though, you have a case here of a baby born to a mother who is a US citizen, while in Canada. Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.
Otherwise, why don't we have thousands of babies of US servicemen, stationed in Korea and marrying there, find their babies get draft orders for the South Korean military? Stated in this fashion, you have made a ridiculous argument.
Wikipedia says this:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
Yes, yes, your arguments are understood, but they're nothing more than speculation until actual case law is established. Notice the source "indicates" instead of pointing to case law that actually states. It's not set until it's codified by Congress with a law stating so, or the judiciary through an interpretation of the undefined term "natural born." (Or I suppose in this age of abuse by the executive branch, by executive order.) You can be making a very good guess that's how it will play out, but it's still just a guess.
Also, the citizenship practices of other nations have zero bearing on the citizenship practices of the United States. Your South Korean example is perfectly refuted by the fact that exactly the opposite is true in America.
Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.
Not that it has any bearing on how other nations establish their citizenship requirements, but that's exactly how it works in America. If a foreign soldier is on duty in the United States and gives birth to a child, that child is automatically an American citizen by virtue of being born on US soil. Same for children of illegal immigrants, neither parent has to be an American, if the kid is born on US soil, they are automatically US citizens.
Cruz is delusional. He grasps for words and just makes stuff up when he talks. I don't trust him at all.
And on the ACA (morons call it Obamacare, yes.. I'm aware there are a lot of them) it got rid of 'some' of the evils of healthcare insurance. Would have been better to completely BAN healthcare insurance and instead mandated standardized pricing. Let me be clear: Insurance companies failed absolutely. Repealing ACA with no thoughtful replacement is just stupid.
Thank god for ACA and no more pre-existing condition clauses and no more lifetime care limits... and all the other crap the ACA stopped insurance companies from doing.
healthcare insurance companies are still evil and there's a long way to go to complete the neutering required.
Insurance companies are leeches in the health system. Total scam artists who delay the distribution of affordable health care. Health care providers aren't much better but they are the ones who should profit: not the domineering money institutions.
Healthcare needs to be regulated and Insurance companies need to stay completely out of Healthcare and stick to life insurance, cars, electronics, etc... anything but healthcare.
Oh... and dental and healthcare should NOT be separated as coverage. Your teeth are part of your health too! I can't believe we all just mindlessly go along with this bullcrap.
And on the ACA (morons call it Obamacare, yes.. I'm aware there are a lot of them) it got rid of 'some' of the evils of healthcare insurance. Would have been better to completely BAN healthcare insurance and instead mandated standardized pricing. Let me be clear: Insurance companies failed absolutely. Repealing ACA with no thoughtful replacement is just stupid.
Thank god for ACA and no more pre-existing condition clauses and no more lifetime care limits... and all the other crap the ACA stopped insurance companies from doing.
healthcare insurance companies are still evil and there's a long way to go to complete the neutering required.
Insurance companies are leeches in the health system. Total scam artists who delay the distribution of affordable health care. Health care providers aren't much better but they are the ones who should profit: not the domineering money institutions.
Healthcare needs to be regulated and Insurance companies need to stay completely out of Healthcare and stick to life insurance, cars, electronics, etc... anything but healthcare.
Oh... and dental and healthcare should NOT be separated as coverage. Your teeth are part of your health too! I can't believe we all just mindlessly go along with this bullcrap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHTggTGNHws
Moron, indeed
That idiot will never get this bill passed.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President.
Quote from: US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
NO, this is not an accurate assessment of his status.
http://tedcruztalk.com/2015/01/25/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-run-for-president/
Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz –was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.
So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.
Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.
Constitutional requirements...
Cruz considers himself to be American-born, how quaint! Guess that settles it! "The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is." Well, with such an apparent wealth of sources on the topic, surely you could have posted a couple reputable ones? From what I've found, there is no definitive case law on the definition of "natural born citizen." It doesn't matter what arguments exist, it matters what actual law exists. Since Cruz was not born in the US, perhaps some liberals will challenge him and force him to defend his self-appointed natural born status and a court will finally create a precedent on what "natural born" definitively means. That's even assuming Cruz is viable enough to for people to take his candidacy seriously. (Hahahaha!)
Regarding the actual facts, though, you have a case here of a baby born to a mother who is a US citizen, while in Canada. Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.
Otherwise, why don't we have thousands of babies of US servicemen, stationed in Korea and marrying there, find their babies get draft orders for the South Korean military? Stated in this fashion, you have made a ridiculous argument.
Wikipedia says this:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]
That idiot will never get this bill passed.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President.
Quote from: US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
NO, this is not an accurate assessment of his status.
http://tedcruztalk.com/2015/01/25/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-run-for-president/
Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz –was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.
So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.
Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.
Constitutional requirements...
Cruz considers himself to be American-born, how quaint! Guess that settles it! "The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is." Well, with such an apparent wealth of sources on the topic, surely you could have posted a couple reputable ones? From what I've found, there is no definitive case law on the definition of "natural born citizen." It doesn't matter what arguments exist, it matters what actual law exists. Since Cruz was not born in the US, perhaps some liberals will challenge him and force him to defend his self-appointed natural born status and a court will finally create a precedent on what "natural born" definitively means. That's even assuming Cruz is viable enough to for people to take his candidacy seriously. (Hahahaha!)
Cruz is delusional. He grasps for words and just makes stuff up when he talks. I don't trust him at all.
And on the ACA (morons call it Obamacare, yes.. I'm aware there are a lot of them) it got rid of 'some' of the evils of healthcare insurance. Would have been better to completely BAN healthcare insurance and instead mandated standardized pricing. Let me be clear: Insurance companies failed absolutely. Repealing ACA with no thoughtful replacement is just stupid.
Thank god for ACA and no more pre-existing condition clauses and no more lifetime care limits... and all the other crap the ACA stopped insurance companies from doing.
healthcare insurance companies are still evil and there's a long way to go to complete the neutering required.
Insurance companies are leeches in the health system. Total scam artists who delay the distribution of affordable health care. Health care providers aren't much better but they are the ones who should profit: not the domineering money institutions.
Healthcare needs to be regulated and Insurance companies need to stay completely out of Healthcare and stick to life insurance, cars, electronics, etc... anything but healthcare.
Oh... and dental and healthcare should NOT be separated as coverage. Your teeth are part of your health too! I can't believe we all just mindlessly go along with this bullcrap.
And on the ACA (morons call it Obamacare, yes.. I'm aware there are a lot of them) it got rid of 'some' of the evils of healthcare insurance. Would have been better to completely BAN healthcare insurance and instead mandated standardized pricing. Let me be clear: Insurance companies failed absolutely. Repealing ACA with no thoughtful replacement is just stupid.
Thank god for ACA and no more pre-existing condition clauses and no more lifetime care limits... and all the other crap the ACA stopped insurance companies from doing.
healthcare insurance companies are still evil and there's a long way to go to complete the neutering required.
Insurance companies are leeches in the health system. Total scam artists who delay the distribution of affordable health care. Health care providers aren't much better but they are the ones who should profit: not the domineering money institutions.
Healthcare needs to be regulated and Insurance companies need to stay completely out of Healthcare and stick to life insurance, cars, electronics, etc... anything but healthcare.
Oh... and dental and healthcare should NOT be separated as coverage. Your teeth are part of your health too! I can't believe we all just mindlessly go along with this bullcrap.
I can't believe we have birthers among us, still, after so long ago
The Cruz Birthers
Some question whether the Canada-born freshman senator is eligible for the presidency (hint: he is).
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343914/cruz-birthers-eliana-johnson
Personally I hope ted cruz will be the saint michael to that 0bamacare...
That idiot will never get this bill passed.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President.
Quote from: US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
NO, this is not an accurate assessment of his status.
http://tedcruztalk.com/2015/01/25/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-run-for-president/
Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz –was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.
So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.
Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.
Constitutional requirements...
The Constitution is just words on paper. LOL
Yes, they are legally binding words on paper that preclude Sen Cruz from ever becoming president.
And Thank God for that.
God truly was looking out for America when she made us.
Good luck finding a judge or justice or a single person in government who is truly bound to enforce the law (under magical certainty of death for not doing so).
The Constitution is just words on paper. LOL
Yes, they are legally binding words on paper that preclude Sen Cruz from ever becoming president.
And Thank God for that.
God truly was looking out for America when she made us.
The Constitution is just words on paper. LOL
That idiot will never get this bill passed.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President.
Quote from: US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
So you're a supporter of the repeal?
Not necessarily. I was opposed to the passage of the bill, and I'm opposed to the concept that the government can force you to buy something you don't want to buy. There is though a question in my mind as to whether health care is truly a special case which necessitates everyone's mandatory involvement. (I haven't definitely answered that question yet for myself.) But repeal now will create chaos, and it's doubtful democrats would let the issue die there and would attempt again, which will further extend the chaos. I was more speaking from a sense of interest as to whether republicans will make a meaningful attempt at repeal when they have the votes to actually do it. When they didn't have the votes, it was all for theater ahead of the midterm elections. Now there will be actual consequences for attempting to repeal, and I'm not sure they will want to risk control of both houses over it. But I'm certainly watching because the strategy of why they act interests me, if not the actual repealing of the law itself.
The solution (repealing Obamacare) to the problem(Obamacare) is not the problem.
I guarantee that repealing causes more disruption than not at this point. It will disrupt business and insurance companies the most as no one knows what to expect any more, and then democrats will try to pass something again, further extending the uncertainty. If you think you repeal this and it just ends and everything is fixed, I think you will be proven mistaken.
Anyway, there is CONTINUING chaos at this time due to lawless behavior of the POTUS with respect to Obamacare as well as many other things. Example? We just saw chaos last week, when the IRS was fixing to lay down penalties for those who deserved them - according to the law - for not having obamacare plans.
And the white house made the penalties go away. POOF!
That's "continuing chaos." Over and over and over.
In such an environment it's not possible to invoke the fear factor and cow the other side into doing nothing.
And there's a Supreme Court case coming up.
So you're a supporter of the repeal?
Not necessarily. I was opposed to the passage of the bill, and I'm opposed to the concept that the government can force you to buy something you don't want to buy. There is though a question in my mind as to whether health care is truly a special case which necessitates everyone's mandatory involvement. (I haven't definitely answered that question yet for myself.) But repeal now will create chaos, and it's doubtful democrats would let the issue die there and would attempt again, which will further extend the chaos. I was more speaking from a sense of interest as to whether republicans will make a meaningful attempt at repeal when they have the votes to actually do it. When they didn't have the votes, it was all for theater ahead of the midterm elections. Now there will be actual consequences for attempting to repeal, and I'm not sure they will want to risk control of both houses over it. But I'm certainly watching because the strategy of why they act interests me, if not the actual repealing of the law itself.
The solution (repealing Obamacare) to the problem(Obamacare) is not the problem.
I guarantee that repealing causes more disruption than not at this point. It will disrupt business and insurance companies the most as no one knows what to expect any more, and then democrats will try to pass something again, further extending the uncertainty. If you think you repeal this and it just ends and everything is fixed, I think you will be proven mistaken.
So you're a supporter of the repeal?
Not necessarily. I was opposed to the passage of the bill, and I'm opposed to the concept that the government can force you to buy something you don't want to buy. There is though a question in my mind as to whether health care is truly a special case which necessitates everyone's mandatory involvement. (I haven't definitely answered that question yet for myself.) But repeal now will create chaos, and it's doubtful democrats would let the issue die there and would attempt again, which will further extend the chaos. I was more speaking from a sense of interest as to whether republicans will make a meaningful attempt at repeal when they have the votes to actually do it. When they didn't have the votes, it was all for theater ahead of the midterm elections. Now there will be actual consequences for attempting to repeal, and I'm not sure they will want to risk control of both houses over it. But I'm certainly watching because the strategy of why they act interests me, if not the actual repealing of the law itself.
The solution (repealing Obamacare) to the problem(Obamacare) is not the problem.
So you're a supporter of the repeal?
Not necessarily. I was opposed to the passage of the bill, and I'm opposed to the concept that the government can force you to buy something you don't want to buy. There is though a question in my mind as to whether health care is truly a special case which necessitates everyone's mandatory involvement. (I haven't definitely answered that question yet for myself.) But repeal now will create chaos, and it's doubtful democrats would let the issue die there and would attempt again, which will further extend the chaos. I was more speaking from a sense of interest as to whether republicans will make a meaningful attempt at repeal when they have the votes to actually do it. When they didn't have the votes, it was all for theater ahead of the midterm elections. Now there will be actual consequences for attempting to repeal, and I'm not sure they will want to risk control of both houses over it. But I'm certainly watching because the strategy of why they act interests me, if not the actual repealing of the law itself.
So you're a supporter of the repeal?
I've been waiting for republicans to get going on this after all the promises. I'll be interested to see how committed they are to the repeal, because I've been operating on the assumption that they talk about it for theater more than anything else. I'm a skeptic, but I view this as a campaign move more than a serious attempt to repeal.
Well, it looks like the game is on, let's see how many of the republicans are willing to do the right thing. Looks like it's time to go all in and call the democrats bluff and put them back on their heels.
In 2013 IIRC the Demos changed the filibuster rules, such that for judges confirmation, a simple majority was required, and for other matters, 3/5 was required instead of 2/3.
But budget reconciliation matters had always been a simple majority. Now since Obamacare was passed as budget reconciliation (wrongly, of course) it should be reversed on that same basis. In turn this means the Republicans actually can pass the bill in the Senate, and then in the House.
This would leave Obama to veto it.
Personally I would like to see this occur. I'd also like to see those votes with names attached on the table for everyone to see.
Well, it looks like the game is on, let's see how many of the republicans are willing to do the right thing. Looks like it's time to go all in and call the democrats bluff and put them back on their heels.
Quote
Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) introduced an "Obamacare Repeal Act" that would repeal the Affordable Care Act "as if such Act had not been enacted."
The text of Cruz's bill to repeal the 2,700-page law barely runs onto the third page.
"This repeal bill is pro-growth, pro-jobs, and pro-liberty." Cruz says in a statement on the bill. "It provides time for Congress to start over, to pass true market-based reforms that will allow the purchase of insurance across state lines, expand health savings accounts, and make health insurance, personal, portable, and affordable."
The bill is co-sponsored by 44 Senate Republicans, including Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.
If Republicans could get around a Democratic filibuster, Cruz would be the only prospective presidential candidate who could claim to have authored the first Obamacare repeal that passed through Congress.
The text of Cruz's bill to repeal the 2,700-page law barely runs onto the third page.
"This repeal bill is pro-growth, pro-jobs, and pro-liberty." Cruz says in a statement on the bill. "It provides time for Congress to start over, to pass true market-based reforms that will allow the purchase of insurance across state lines, expand health savings accounts, and make health insurance, personal, portable, and affordable."
The bill is co-sponsored by 44 Senate Republicans, including Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.
If Republicans could get around a Democratic filibuster, Cruz would be the only prospective presidential candidate who could claim to have authored the first Obamacare repeal that passed through Congress.
More...http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/397732/ted-cruz-unveils-obamacare-repeal-act-joel-gehrke
Sen. Cruz is likely my distant 2nd favorite US Senator behind Sen. Paul as he's decently conservative on fiscal issues but I have disagreements w/ him on foreign policy.
Jump to: