Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To me, the President's situation is totally different. I am not a birther, I think he was born in Hawaii or if he wasn't it really makes no difference now, but the question about Cruz is not where he was born but does his parents citizenship affect his being legally elegible to run for President. The question about Obama was related to where he actually was born.
The problem with Obama is his parents' citizenship. He was born a Brit via his father and therefore should have been ineligible for POTUS. I've already explained why even giving an example... the events precipitating the War of 1812. Plus, to this day, the US State Dept warns of the international law problems presented by dual (or more) nationality.
yep, i've posted both the congressional research service's report
I've already posted the evidence that Maskell had to LIE about what SCOTUS said in that report to make his point. That's a debunked source.
Quote:
you may want to share your views with Informed Consent. S/He claims that those who believe cruz is eligible do not understand the law.
They don't. I've explained it very clearly and even gave a historical example (War of 1812), and current international law requirements (US State Dept).
The problem with Obama is his parents' citizenship.
"Therefore every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. …"
–William Rawle – A View of the Constitution (1829)
"Therefore every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. …"
–William Rawle – A View of the Constitution (1829)
A "view" is not a law nor a Constitutional requirement.
In the meantime, use some critical thinking skills...
Why are naturalized citizens ineligible for POTUS? Because a naturalized citizen once owed allegiance to a foreign government, with all that such entails (requirement to serve in the military, obey the foreign government's laws, etc.). Same is true of those who are born dual (or more) nationals. They either still do or once owed allegiance to a foreign government, with all that such entails.
Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. The chickens are coming home to roost for Conservatives.
It's all BS, of course, but then, so is all the Obama birther stuff. I have zero pity or empathy for the rightwing candidates who will have to endure this garbage now. But not to worry, these guys are white, so it won't last long, nor will it grow into the cottage industry that the Obama birtherism has become.
Yeah, because a magna *** laude graduate from Harvard Law that clerked for Former Chief Justice Renquist at the Supreme Court, would not know whether the details surrounding his birth would render his candidacy constitutionally ineligible.
Well, sure...except that she didn't. Some of her followers briefly dabbled in it, but Hillary never did. And it was the right wingers who really took it and ran with it to the ridiculous degree we see today.
Google PUMAs and educate yourself. Or don't, and continue to be a birther.
I really don't even know why I sometimes engage with some of you, because it is intellectually not a fair fight. More importantly, even if I give someone credit for having a blind spot (i.e. support D's so you see no wrong with them), then wild speculation with no evidence to support it is proffered.
For example, just because I mention how members of Hillary's own staff started the opposition research against Obama (which is a fact), I am then called a birther by someone who wants to object to those facts.
How on earth does your convoluted thinking allow you to believe I am a birther based on anything I've said?
Or is it just easier to name call like a PCer (i.e. racist, homophobe, birther, etc.) when you cannot defend your position.
BTW - I get a kick out of perpetual liars such as Hillary or Trump who use plausible deniability to try and distance themselves from anything that becomes unpopular. Hillary claims her overzealous state staff and/or supporters did it, not her.
Does anyone really believe that if it could have been proved she would not have used to get thr nomination over him?
Trump claims Jeb Bush was never solicited by him, implying that his paid surrogates acted on their own, and without his knowledge/approval.
Does anyone really believe Trump would not have moved casinos into FL if Jeb had given the ok to Trump representatives?
So for the koolaid drinkers, they will lap up the denials of their own candidate, and scream bloody murder at the opposition doing the exact same thing. When will people, even koolaid drinkers ever wake up?
Yeah, because a magna *** laude graduate from Harvard Law that clerked for Former Chief Justice Renquist at the Supreme Court, would not know whether the details surrounding his birth would render his candidacy constitutionally ineligible.
that seems to be what InformedConsent is saying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
