Is Ted Cruz, born in Canada, eligible to run for president?

[Crabtownboy]

If you look at the seal, that's not even embossed. It's just a flat decal. The director's signature is obviously an ink-stamp. Place of birth: Calgary, Alberta. Yeah--way to nail that down. Was he born in a hospital? A tent? On the prairie? Sheesh!

I believe you are wrong about the seal. If you look very carefully it appears to be embossed.

Hospital, home, in a wagon, I do not see that as important in any manner.

 

[HankD]

And so the flip-flops begin!

HankD

 

[InTheLight]

I believe you are wrong about the seal. If you look very carefully it appears to be embossed.

Hospital, home, in a wagon, I do not see that as important in any manner.

I was being facetious. Surely you remember all the whining about Photoshopped layers and fake birth certificates with Obama?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I was being facetious. Surely you remember all the whining about Photoshopped layers and fake birth certificates with Obama?

Sure do remember. Now I wonder how many of those folk will flip-flop on this one?

 

[InTheLight]

OK, this is too much. This campaign logo obviously shows an upside down American flag on fire. :laugh:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Sure do remember. Now I wonder how many of those folk will flip-flop on this one?

I think you're the first.

 

[Zaac]

OK, this is too much. This campaign logo obviously shows an upside down American flag on fire. :laugh:

I don't like it. Too many similarities. Definitely done with purpose.

 

[Sapper Woody]

This has actually put the GOP in an excellent position. No matter what the Dems say, the GOP can respond with, "YOU set the precedent. We're just following you." No flip-flopping needed.



However, if any of the Dems oppose him, they are most certainly flip-flopping.



It's a great situation for the GOP.

 

[InTheLight]

This has actually put the GOP in an excellent position. No matter what the Dems say, the GOP can respond with, "YOU set the precedent. We're just following you." No flip-flopping needed.

Obama was born in Hawaii. Cruz was born in Canada. There is a difference.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Obama was born in Hawaii. Cruz was born in Canada. There is a difference.

In the context of common sense, this means something. In the context of politics, I doubt it will make a difference.

 

[righteousdude2]

Though I do not think Cruz would be a good candidate I believe he is eligible to run for president as a natural born citizen. It is the same arguments I used to say Obama was a natural born citizen. One difference is that Obama was born in Hawaii and Cruz in Canada. Last time I checked Canada was an independent country. I am not sure how the dual citizenship, US and Canadian plays out in this one. I wonder if Cuba considers Cruz a citizen of Cuba? After all his father was born in Cuba.

I wonder how many on the BB who were so against Obama being considered natural born will now defend Cruz? That would seem a contradiction in thinking.

Funny how what goes around comes around.

"Eh!" :laugh:​

 

[Salty]

Obama was born in Hawaii. Cruz was born in Canada. There is a difference.

The big question was, at the time, why it took Obama so long to release his birth certificate.
Based on his upbringing - it was reasonable, at the time, to consider doubts about his citizenship.

Now, the new question - Who determines if a person is a natural born citizen.
Should it be the Federal Elections Commission?
Should it be the DC District Court
Should it be the Supreme Court
Should it be left up to the voters

 

[Crabtownboy]

I think you're the first.

Read my first post and then apologize.

What is your opinion on the question?

 

[Revmitchell]

The big question was, at the time, why it took Obama so long to release his birth certificate.
Based on his upbringing - it was reasonable, at the time, to consider doubts about his citizenship.

Now, the new question - Who determines if a person is a natural born citizen.
Should it be the Federal Elections Commission?
Should it be the DC District Court
Should it be the Supreme Court
Should it be left up to the voters

Folks know that they just want to be difficult.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The big question was, at the time, why it took Obama so long to release his birth certificate.
Based on his upbringing - it was reasonable, at the time, to consider doubts about his citizenship.

Now, the new question - Who determines if a person is a natural born citizen.
Should it be the Federal Elections Commission?
Should it be the DC District Court
Should it be the Supreme Court
Should it be left up to the voters

In the long run ... and it may be a very long run the Supreme Court will decide. They are the ultimate test in our government.

 

[church mouse guy]

I think that it is settled law that if you are born of American parents that you are an American. Cruz points out that Barry Goldwater was not born in the USA but was born of American parents in Arizona when Arizona was a territory and not a state. McCain was born in Panama, of course, while his father was in service--both McCain's grandfather and father were Admirals, as you know.

Is America really ready for a swing to the right, Ted Cruz-style?

After eight years of Obama’s catastrophic presidency, voters just might be.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/matthew-vadum/the-lefts-ted-cruz-freakout/

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Read my first post and then apologize.

No. Nothing to apologize for.

What is your opinion on the question?

It seems important to you.

 

[Salty]

I think that it is settled law that if you are born of American parents that you are an American. ...

So a native of Puerto Rico would be legally able to run for President of the US? Even though no one in PR, would be able to vote for him?

 

[OldRegular]

No, not everybody, I would never say that. But there are a large number who are very prejudice. I worked as a volunteer at a hospital and the jokes that conservative GOPers told about Obama were simply horrific.

I would never say everybody in the GOP are haters. There is no issue in the US where everyone is on one side or the other.

The Southern policy begun by Nixon, and dishonestly denied by some even to this day, was a policy that played on race and on the passage of the Civil Rights Act under Johnson.

You are such a lying hypocrite Crabby. It is the democrats who are the party of racism. They prove this by making "plantation blacks" out of the black population in this country; making them dependent on "massa" Federal government.

Furthermore, as I have noted on a number of occasions the South began to swing from democrat to Republican when Eisenhower recognized the South as a part of the Union again. The following article shows that the swing from democrat to Republican began well before Eisenhower but the big shift came under Eisenhower. All this barnyard crap you spew about the Nixon Southern strategy is simply an example of your "Hate the Southerners" mentality.

I’ve written at length on this, both in my book and here, but it is worth revisiting. In truth, the white South began breaking away from the Democrats in the 1920s, as population centers began to develop in what was being called the “New South” (remember, at the beginning of the 20th century, New Orleans was the only thing approximating what we currently think of as a city in the South).

In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR performed worse in the South in every election following his 1932 election. By the mid-1940s, the GOP was winning about a quarter of the Southern vote in presidential elections.

But the big breakthrough, to the extent that there was one, came in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower won 48 percent of the vote there, compared to Adlai Stevenson’s 52 percent. He carried most of the “peripheral South” -- Virginia, Tennessee, Texas and Florida -- and made inroads in the “Deep South,” almost carrying South Carolina and losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.

Even in what we might call the “Deepest South” -- Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi -- Eisenhower kept Stevenson under 70 percent, which might not seem like much until you realize that Tom Dewey got 18 percent in Georgia against FDR in 1944, and that this had been an improvement over Herbert Hoover’s 8 percent in 1932.

In 1956, Eisenhower became the first Republican since Reconstruction to win a plurality of the vote in the South, 49.8 percent to 48.9 percent. He once again carried the peripheral South, but also took Louisiana with 53 percent of the vote. He won nearly 40 percent of the vote in Alabama. This is all the more jarring when you realize that the Brown v. Board decision was handed down in the interim, that the administration had appointed the chief justice who wrote the decision, and that the administration had opposed the school board.

Nor can we simply write this off to Eisenhower’s celebrity. The GOP was slowly improving its showings at the congressional level as well. It won a special election to a House seat in west Texas in 1950, and began winning urban congressional districts in Texas, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia with regularity beginning in 1952.

Perhaps the biggest piece of evidence that something significant was afoot is Richard Nixon’s showing in 1960. He won 46.1 percent of the vote to John F. Kennedy’s 50.5 percent. One can write this off to JFK’s Catholicism, but writing off three elections in a row becomes problematic, especially given the other developments bubbling up at the local level. It’s even more problematic when you consider that JFK had the nation’s most prominent Southerner on the ticket with him.

But the biggest problem with the thesis comes when you consider what had been going on in the interim: Two civil rights bills pushed by the Eisenhower administration had cleared Congress, and the administration was pushing forward with the Brown decision, most famously by sending the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to assist with the integration of Little Rock Central High School.

It’s impossible to separate race and economics completely anywhere in the country, perhaps least of all in the South. But the inescapable truth is that the GOP was making its greatest gains in the South while it was also pushing a pro-civil rights agenda nationally. What was really driving the GOP at this time was economic development. As Southern cities continued to develop and sprout suburbs, Southern exceptionalism was eroded; Southern whites simply became wealthy enough to start voting Republican.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater won 49 percent of the vote in the South to Lyndon Johnson’s 52 percent. This doesn’t represent a massive breakthrough; in fact, Goldwater ran somewhat behind Eisenhower’s 1956 showing. He lost Texas, Virginia, Florida, and Tennessee, all four of which were won twice by Eisenhower and the last three of which were won by Nixon. He also lost North Carolina and Arkansas.

Goldwater did win Louisiana and South Carolina, although as we saw above, those states became “swing states” in the 1950s, not the 1960s. The only real breakthroughs for Republicans came in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi (Goldwater won 87 percent of the vote in the latter). But the argument that white Southerners in those states began voting Republican in 1964 is quite a different animal than the much broader claim that white Southerners began voting Republican that year; even then, the groundwork in these largely rural states had been laid in the 1950s.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...op_predates_the_60s_118172.html#ixzz3VJNdi9Z4

I would not call you a hater. There are others on the BB who, under different circumstances I would.

I am quite sure you consider me a "hater" and you are correct. I hate hypocrisy such as shown by you when you post those pious remarks about how much you love the poor and downtrodden while at the same time supporting the slaughter of the unborn, "O thou follower of Baal!"

 

[Crabtownboy]

So a native of Puerto Rico would be legally able to run for President of the US? Even though no one in PR, would be able to vote for him?

Guess the same would be true of someone born in America Samoa.