Sen. Ted Cruz Makes It Official

[Pressing-On]

Facts on Ted Cruz and Obamacare:

Obamacare:
• Cruz made a name for himself as a conservative leader through his efforts to defund Obamacare during his 21-hour-long floor speech, which spanned two days, from September 24-25, 2013.[1] During his speech, grassroots conservatives across the country rallied around Cruz’s efforts and #‎MakeDCListen began trending on twitter. “I’ll talk until I can’t stand anymore. Don’t worry, I have government-run health insurance. I’ll be fine.”[2],[3]
• Cruz has been the leader in the Senate of the defund Obamacare movement. He has introduced a number of bills to defund and repeal Obamacare.
• Introduced the Defund Obamacare Act of 2013 that would defund Obamacare by preventing taxpayer dollars from being used to implement the law[4]
• In January 2013, Cruz introduced the Obamacare Repeal Act[5]
• Authored an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds in an appropriations bill from going to Obamacare[6]
• Authored an amendment to replace Obamacare with patient-centered, free-market reforms to improve health outcomes and reduce health care costs, promoting economic growth[7]

Sourced:
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-c...ry?id=20365712
[2] www.washingtonpost.com/sf/nati...
[3] www.ijreview.com/2013/09/81563...
[4] https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...?resultIndex=2
[5] www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=sponsor...
[6] https://www.congress.gov/amendment/1.../26/cosponsors
[7] https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...t-resolution/8

[Pressing-On]

How the Second Amendment ‘Proves’ Ted Cruz’s Eligibility

Conclusion

All three factors an originalist considers—original plain meaning, history, and structure—point in the same direction here. A person is a natural born citizen for purposes of Article II if he was a citizen the moment he was born.

Cruz was born to an American mother, and therefore both under the laws of this nation’s founding, and also the laws in effect when he was born in 1970, he is a natural born citizen of the United States.

See more: http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ond-amendment/

[aegsm76]

Cruz is eligible, just as BHO was eligible...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Cruz is eligible, just as BHO was eligible...

Right. The argument centers on "natural born" and parentage.

The term “natural born citizen” had no existence or independent original meaning prior to the moment it was included in the Constitution the United States was founded. It was adapted by the framers [of the Constitution] from the well-known British concept of the “natural born subject” of the sovereign monarch. England had numerous and changing legal rules governing exactly who was and who was not a “natural born subject,” which can be used to muddy the waters. But one consistently applied rule is particularly germane: The offspring of the King were natural born subjects of the King regardless of where they were born, whether on English territory or not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-born-citizen/

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. . .

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/

On parentage:

Beginning in 1934, Congress began recognizing transfer of citizenship through the mother. [Naturalization Act of 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.]

It is as Ted Cruz has stated - straight forward.

“I will say it is more than a little strange to see Donald relying on as authoritative a liberal, left-wing, judicial activist Harvard law professor who is a huge Hillary supporter,” Cruz said to reporters in New Hampshire following a campaign rally, apparently referencing Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe’s legal analysis. “It starts to make you think, ‘Gosh, why are some of Hillary’s strongest supporters backing Donald Trump?’”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...01/12/2760384/

[shazeep]

Cruz bails on the "audit the Fed" vote today, after all that talk?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Cruz bails on the "audit the Fed" vote today, after all that talk?

He didn't vote, which means a no. Cloture was not invoked, which means he is wanting to further the debate.

[Pressing-On]

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

With everything else she and her hubby have gotten away with, and people think she is gonna be 'convicted' over THIS?

lol

[Esaias]

Ted Cruz is not eligible. I know the Cruzbots who work for his campaign cannot admit that (how could they? lol) yet I have already proven the fact.

'Natural born citizen' means one born in the united States to parents who are BOTH citizens at the time of the child's birth. Both Obama and Cruz (and Rubio and Jindal) are ineligible. Both Obama and Cruz are EXACTLY what the founders wanted to prevent - a person becoming President with a cloud on their citizenship and possible loyalty.

I have posted the Supreme Court and other court cases dealing specifically with the 'natural born citizen' clause and its meaning. I have posted links to the originators of the term and what they meant by it.

The so-called 'Constitutionalists' actually don't care about the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Constitution, they just want 'their guy' and 'their party' to win. In fact, nobody in the electoral campaigns since 2008 cares about the Constitution. There simply is no rule of law anymore. Everything is whatever everybody wants it to be. We have entered the era of post-modern election law, where relativism is the watchword of the day. The fact the current 'POTUS' hasn't been impeached and removed from office for being ineligible, the fact that scores if not hundreds of people KNOW he is ineligible but went along with the gag, the fact that 'consteetootionalists' in the 'republican party' not only go along with the current flaunting of Constitutional law, but put forward MULTIPLE CANDIDATES who are equally if not even more so ineligible under the Constitution, proves the rule of law is dead in this country. People don't care about what the law says unless it benefits them somehow.

And this bread and circuses game of electoral politics is nothing less than the guys at the lunch table arguing and getting all hot and bothered about who's on first, what's on second, and who's going to the Superbowl, and who's got a good chance at the next World Series.

Cartoons for adults.

Meanwhile, those who are thought capable on this subject, please go here - http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/se...ural-born.html and READ THE INFORMATION.

The facts are not refuted by PRESS RELEASES from the guilty. Good grief. The fact anyone falls for that nonsense is astounding. The facts are there, they are historical, they are known, they can only be ignored, not actually refuted.

But it does not really matter. The kids are screaming and fully intend to ride this roller coaster to the top of the big 200 foot hill... in spite of the folks on the ground trying to point out the tracks end about 20 foot past the crest...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Ted Cruz is not eligible. I know the Cruzbots who work for his campaign cannot admit that (how could they? lol) yet I have already proven the fact.

'Natural born citizen' means one born in the united States to parents who are BOTH citizens at the time of the child's birth. Both Obama and Cruz (and Rubio and Jindal) are ineligible. Both Obama and Cruz are EXACTLY what the founders wanted to prevent - a person becoming President with a cloud on their citizenship and possible loyalty.

I have posted the Supreme Court and other court cases dealing specifically with the 'natural born citizen' clause and its meaning. I have posted links to the originators of the term and what they meant by it.

The so-called 'Constitutionalists' actually don't care about the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Constitution, they just want 'their guy' and 'their party' to win. In fact, nobody in the electoral campaigns since 2008 cares about the Constitution. There simply is no rule of law anymore. Everything is whatever everybody wants it to be. We have entered the era of post-modern election law, where relativism is the watchword of the day. The fact the current 'POTUS' hasn't been impeached and removed from office for being ineligible, the fact that scores if not hundreds of people KNOW he is ineligible but went along with the gag, the fact that 'consteetootionalists' in the 'republican party' not only go along with the current flaunting of Constitutional law, but put forward MULTIPLE CANDIDATES who are equally if not even more so ineligible under the Constitution, proves the rule of law is dead in this country. People don't care about what the law says unless it benefits them somehow.

And this bread and circuses game of electoral politics is nothing less than the guys at the lunch table arguing and getting all hot and bothered about who's on first, what's on second, and who's going to the Superbowl, and who's got a good chance at the next World Series.

Cartoons for adults.

Meanwhile, those who are thought capable on this subject, please go here - http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/se...ural-born.html and READ THE INFORMATION.

The facts are not refuted by PRESS RELEASES from the guilty. Good grief. The fact anyone falls for that nonsense is astounding. The facts are there, they are historical, they are known, they can only be ignored, not actually refuted.

But it does not really matter. The kids are screaming and fully intend to ride this roller coaster to the top of the big 200 foot hill... in spite of the folks on the ground trying to point out the tracks end about 20 foot past the crest...

Cruzbots? So, you want to come here and begin with insults? How stupid of you.

This is a lengthy article which goes over the legalities. If you deem yourself "capable", try reading it.

While the activist majority opinion in Wong disagreed with Fuller on automatic birthright citizenship for a child of legally domiciled Chinese immigrant parents, they certainly all agreed that children born to American parents had always been citizens. In fact, Fuller challenges the majority opinion by noting that according to their legal rationale, it would have worked out that anyone born overseas to American parents from 1868-1898 were not citizens, which was clearly not the case. [v]


v] Id. at 706 [“If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 8, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were, and are, aliens, unless they have, or shall on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States, and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect.”] at 714 [“On the other hand, it seems to me that the rule partus sequitur patrem has always applied to children of our citizens born abroad, and that the acts of Congress on this subject are clearly declaratory, passed out of abundant caution to obviate misunderstandings which might arise from the prevalence of the contrary rule elsewhere.”] at 714 [“In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government. If not, and if the correct view is that they were aliens but collectively naturalized under the act of Congress which recognized them as natural-born, then those born since the Fourteenth Amendment are not citizens at all,”]

See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/c....94eeK4nf.dpuf