Ted Cruz was born in Canada

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I would argue there are citizens by positive law and those by natural law.

Where are those 2 types of laws mentioned in the constitution?

Obama is a citizen by positive law.

No, natural law!

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens”

originally posted by: rickymouse
Cruz's mother was a Canadian citizen when he was born.

When did she give up her US citizenship?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
And the framers deferred to natural law on this issue...hence the phrase "natural born Citizen."

Well, there are 2 types of citizen, naturalised and natural born. Obama was never naturalised, he is natural born.

I would argue there are citizens by positive law and those by natural law.

Obama is a citizen by positive law.

How is Obama a citizen of positive Law, wouldn't that assume he was made a citizen rather than born a citizen.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I would argue there are citizens by positive law and those by natural law.

Where are those 2 types of laws mentioned in the constitution?

Obama is a citizen by positive law.

No, natural law!

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens”

You are citing positive case law, thereby negating natural law.

You refuted your point.

a reply to: hellobruce

If she was eligible to vote in Canada she would have had dual citizenship.
Unless our voting laws weren't as strict way back then.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I would argue there are citizens by positive law and those by natural law.

Where are those 2 types of laws mentioned in the constitution?

Obama is a citizen by positive law.

No, natural law!

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens”

You are citing positive case law, thereby negating natural law.

You refuted your point.

You are very confused, you keep missing this bit

we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens

So obviously Obama is a natural born citizen!

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
And the framers deferred to natural law on this issue...hence the phrase "natural born Citizen."

Well, there are 2 types of citizen, naturalised and natural born. Obama was never naturalised, he is natural born.

I would argue there are citizens by positive law and those by natural law.

Obama is a citizen by positive law.

How is Obama a citizen of positive Law, wouldn't that assume he was made a citizen rather than born a citizen.

Because British Nationality laws and U.S. citizenship laws made him a dual national/citizen. Therefore he is not a natural born citizen.

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: hellobruce

If she was eligible to vote in Canada she would have had dual citizenship.

So still a US citizen!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I would argue there are citizens by positive law and those by natural law.

Where are those 2 types of laws mentioned in the constitution?

Obama is a citizen by positive law.

No, natural law!

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens”

You are citing positive case law, thereby negating natural law.

You refuted your point.

You are very confused, you keep missing this bit

we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens

So obviously Obama is a natural born citizen!

No court determines who is a natural born citizen. Case law is positive law.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: hellobruce

If she was eligible to vote in Canada she would have had dual citizenship.

So still a US citizen!

But not a natural born citizen.

a reply to: hellobruce

Yes. She was still a USA citizen, that's how her son ended up as dual.

***** ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS *****

Come on guys really? Keep it on topic, not on each other, not on signatures, not on anything else but the topic of the thread. Further off topic posting will earn posting bans.

***** DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST *****

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I would argue there are citizens by positive law and those by natural law.

Where are those 2 types of laws mentioned in the constitution?

Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
No court determines who is a natural born citizen.

So how is it determined then?

Flip a coin? Consult chicken entrails?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
No court determines who is a natural born citizen.

So how is it determined then?

Flip a coin? Consult chicken entrails?

The ultimate power is vested with the People.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I would argue there are citizens by positive law and those by natural law.

Where are those 2 types of laws mentioned in the constitution?

Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?

Yes, the first 10 amendments to the constitution... nothing in there about what natural born is!

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
No court determines who is a natural born citizen.

So how is it determined then?

Flip a coin? Consult chicken entrails?

The ultimate power is vested with the People.

Well, the people through the courts decided Obama is a natural born citizen... The People voted for him as President twice.... so the People know he is a natural born citizen!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I would argue there are citizens by positive law and those by natural law.

Where are those 2 types of laws mentioned in the constitution?

Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?

Yes, the first 10 amendments to the constitution... nothing in there about what natural born is!

Bill of Rights and Natural Law

You're welcome.

a reply to: hellobruce

Have to go to bed, but will check back tomorrow. Good night!

a reply to: tothetenthpower

This is like 300 years ago. Can we please just stop wondering what dead men would have thought or think?

Considering it would not make one bit of difference. The founding fathers even stated themselves that the constitution should be re-written ever so often, in order to be in line with the current times and struggles of the American People.

In a letter to James Madison on Sept 6 1789, Jefferson said the following:

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

If you read basically any Thomas Paine, you'll see a similar idea repeated. Here's an example from Rights of Man:

Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.

The problem is that the FF have been turned into infallible quasi-religious figures because it's the sort of revisionist history and myth building required to fuel right wing nationalist rhetoric, particularly the sort of garbage spewed by the likes of David Barton, prominent dominionist ideologue (and former Texas Republic Party vice chairman). This is of particular relevance because Ted Cruz is a dominionist and in fact, David Barton is one of his biggest backers. These delusional wingnuts view the Constitution as having an almost divine origin.

Anyway, back on topic!

Ted Cruz's mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth and that's all that matters. He's eligible to be President though he obviously shouldn't be elected because he's a religious extremist and despite all his protesting to the contrary, a theocrat.