Cruz Scores 100% in ACU Annual Ratings

by
May 13, 2015

AP13071612079_s878x585

Tough job, but somebody has to do it. For the 44th year in a row, the American Conservative Union has released its annual Congressional ratings for lawmakers who either uphold conservative values – or find them akin to kryptonite. The ratings have become a kind of gold standard, the organization says, in holding every member of Congress accountable for their voting record – and their support of limited government, prosperity, individual freedom and traditional values.

“There are several takeaways from ACU’s 2014 Rating of Congress,” says Matt Schlapp, chairman of the group. “First, the liberals in Congress tend to vote together as a block. The Left does a great job of enforcing lockstep orthodoxy, to the detriment of the constituents they represent. When it comes to passing real conservative reforms, the Left collectively obstructs implementation of commonsense economic, national security, and cultural reforms.”

On a 100-point ratings system for their conservative voting records, there are essentially no Democrats in House or Senate who breeched the 40th percentile. Over 30 Democrats had a score of 0 percent this year, including Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

“We can only conclude that the former Democratic National Committee Chairman plans to serve one-term representing the Commonwealth of Virginia before he returns to lead the fringe portion of the liberal activist base,” Mr. Schlapp observes.

  • Terry Watts

    He has my VOTE !!! God Bless you Senator Cruz !!! Please pick Allen West as VP !!!!

  • Robert Wilson

    Cruz is a great potential cut Rand Paul has my vote.

  • snowyriver

    Wait a minute please. Before any of us vote Cruz for president. Obama in not a natural born citizen as required by our constitution to be president. Neither is Cruz. I for one have not voted against our constitution and I will not.

  • Korean_Vet

    “Natural-Born Citizen” isn’t a description of a baby flown in by a stork or
    hatched from an Ostrich-Egg-! This term was used by Colonials as being
    qualified for President–by having no “Foreign Conflicts of Interest”–which
    we now have observed in the White House today-!
    ————————————————————
    To give you the “Right Idea”–Ben Franklin’s Son was born in America &
    was ‘appointed’ by the “King” to be the British Governor of New Jersey-!
    But his “Allegiance” stayed with the British Empire–& he left America to
    finally live in England–& he died there-! His name was William Franklin &
    Ben Franklin “Dis-owned” his son & never saw his son again–except for
    one-time, when Ben went to England as a ambassador, their encounter
    was “Brief & Strained”-! (We certainly wouldn’t have “Legalized” his son)–
    to ever run as a U.S. President–even though, he’s Ben Franklin’s Son–his
    father never “forgave him” as a “Tory”-! You can see “Why a National–
    Conflict of Interest”–is ‘Active’ even if a Father keeps U.S. “Allegiance”-!
    (Note–that “Legal Possession” is 9/10’s of the Law of “First Title-Rights”-! )
    ——————————————————–
    A Question came up–concerning the Eligibility of U.S. Presidents to be
    Elected–by the Constitution’s Terms of a “Natural-Born Citizen”-! People
    agree that a Native-born Citizen is ‘One’, who is born within U.S. Lands–
    that is governed by the U.S. Government-! But what constitutes the
    definition of a “Natural-Born Citizen”-? To find a reasonable explanation–
    you have to research parts of the histories of the most important ‘Rules &
    Laws in the Early Days’–before the Constitution was written-! –Because
    “Inheritance Rules & Laws” was so important in those early days–even
    “Feather-Beds” had a “Special Value”–if you ‘Inherited’ one from a Mother
    or Father-! Farms–of course, were very high on the List–if legally-given to
    You-! Jewelry was a prize for women, if legally willed to them from a Aunt
    or Mother-! (You only got what was “Legally-given to You”-!) Therefore–
    your birth was very important within your own Family-! But this covered
    only physical property–which was legally-owned by America’s Families-!
    Your Surname, Family-Honor, & Religious Freedom were all “Intangibles”
    which were also highly-valued-! Then, they had Won the Revolutionary
    War, in spite of losses of lives & limbs–and became “Declared Citizens” of
    a new Nation-! This Citizenship became a new possession–& the Fathers
    spent many days–to consider what they must write for Rules concerning
    Public Office Elections-! “No Kings Again”–& they wanted “Freedom of
    Religion” & “Freedom of Speech” & they’d found a “Need for Guns” to
    defend their Homes & other property–including their children-! But not all
    of the People, who lived in the American Colonies–had supported the
    “Revolution” & there were thousands, who had wanted to stay as British
    Subjects-! The decision to let them leave ‘peacefully’ & to be transported
    by British Ships to elsewhere was a wise gesture–the Colonials needed no
    “implanted Handicaps”-! They only needed “Signed Loyalty Oaths” to the
    United States of America–to be Citizens-! Many of these Colonials were
    born in these regions–years before the American Revolution occurred-!
    Safe-Guard the children that were born here later-! Local Residents could
    Run as Congressional Representatives in their areas, & Congressional
    Senators could be elected to cover a State-! But a President would have
    to be “Qualified” as “Eligible” by a Triple Requirement for that High Office–
    & almost everyone agreed George Washington will be the “First One”-! So
    they used the “Rules of Inheritance” as a Requirement-! “Natural-Born
    Citizens” have 2 “Legally-Married” parents that are both U.S. Citizens &
    any “Legal Children” that are born within U.S. Lands–from this Couple–
    are “Legal Heirs”–that will “Legally Inherit their Father’s & Mother’s
    Citizenships-! This Qualifies & Clears these “Legal Heirs” for nominations
    to run as President-! You must have both parents as U.S. Citizens at the
    moment you are born, & you cannot be an “Adopted Child”–born from a
    foreign country, neither can you be an “Adopted” Naturalized Citizen–born
    in another country-! And you must also be a “Native-Born Citizen”–born
    within U.S. Lands-! The “Natural Born Citizen” qualifications Left no other
    “Questions” about you–being A “Natural-Born Qualified Heir”–to both of
    your Parent’s Citizenships-! The Parents “Passed the Rights of Their
    Citizenships–to their ‘Legal Children’, without any further questions” &
    without any “Foreign Conflicts of Interests”-! (Example–“Suppose that
    Hitler had been born to a American Mother in New York City”–can you
    see the “Interest-Conflict” here-!? ) Nope, you’re wrong–It’s his German
    Father–whose “Loyalty” is Pledged to Germany–not the USA-! ———-
    We’ll find in “Gulliver’s Travels” that a “Foolish War” was declared because
    the “Lilliputs” couldn’t agree on a Simple Song for a Marriage-! And we
    found that in the U.S. Supreme Court–“No Single Justice”–there can find
    a reasonable Interpretation of “Natural-Born Citizen”–Since not any of their
    families have ever had a “Family Genealogist”–to “Help Them”-! But–(for
    them who know)–that “2 Married U.S. Citizens”–who have “Legally-Born
    Heirs”–These Children have the “First Title-Rights” to “Inherit” every
    “Right of Citizenships”–that these U.S. Parents have in their “Legal-
    Possession”-! (“Legal Possession” is 9/10’s of the Law-! ) These are
    “Natural-Born Citizens” at the time–they were born-! (Wonder where
    I Got this Information-?! ) WOW-! Oh–I Remember now–it’s found in the
    “Old Inheritance Laws”–which “Existed 100 Years–Before the Constitution
    –was ever “Written” & Years “Later–was Adopted”-! It had no “Mother”-!

  • Mike J. Hrivnak

    Ted Cruz has my vite

  • GQ4U

    Ted Cruz is great but he is not eligible to be president under Article-2.
    http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

    • Judy McKinney

      Do you feel that Obama is a natural born citizen? His father was not a US citizen. How did he get to be president?

  • Sue4477

    Cruz has my vote. He doesn’t flip flop or waffle, he knows what he believes in.

  • Poodleguy

    “Lockstep”, more like “Goosestep”!!!!! Liberalism is definitely a mental disorder!!!!!! Cruz/Walker 2016….!! Sen Ted Cruz is the man for the time!!!!

    • Mike_Travis

      I do have to agree with you here. Thanks to Dr Michael Savage for coining that true phrase.

  • Mike_Travis

    I don’t care how he votes. He is not eligible to be POTUS according to the Constitution as originally written, not as the current bunch of traitors in DC “interpret” it. If we allow him to run for POTUS without challenging him, we are no better than the traitors in the dnc who knew Ovomit was not eligible, and even changed the wording of the certification to hide it.

    We CANNOT compromise where our Constitution is concerned regardless of the issue.

    • Poodleguy

      Where in our Constitution is “nbc” defined? Answer: NOWHERE!! The codified law defining it is found in Title 8,U.S. Code 1401, subsections (a) thru (g). Do your research to avoid making a fool of yourself….

      • Mike_Travis

        Since you have clearly never read the Constitution nor studied what our Founders, who WROTE it, had to say about their intent. First, the Constitution does not define its words nor does it need to. Its authors were intelligent, studied men who chose specific words knowing their meaning at the time. At that time, to be a NBC was commonly taken to require BOTH parents had to be US citizens at the time of the child’s birth. They also used NBC while also using natural and naturalized, understanding that all 3 had different meanings.

        Lastly, just because some arrogant lawyer scum tries to “interpret” the Constitution, no law or interpretation or judicial decision can change what the Founders wrote and intended.

        So come down off your high donkey and learn the truth before you prove you are a fool.

        BTW, the USC code you cited does not refer to NBC at all, so you totally wasted your effort and proved you did not even read the code.

        • Poodleguy

          Sonny, I was studying the Constitution when you were $hittin’ yellow! If you think for one moment you are more learned than Sen Cruz is concerning the Constitution, you are suffering from extreme megalomania!! You also seem to have problems with reading comprehension as to what you are trying to twist the law as spelled out in Title 8…..

  • Rick Stanley

    No surprise here. I will vote for Senator Ted Cruz.

  • Trudy Batteen Thompson

    He supports the Patriot Act. Because of that I will not choose him in the primary.

    • Mike_Travis

      Yet one more reason not to vote for him.

  • Royce Beasley

    !!! D I T T O !!! your comments Tricia Brewer, HE’s the man I want in oval office.

  • John VanderKelen

    Far better than most!

    • raffaelecafagna

      Yes indeed ; the Best man in that district of corruption ; Cruz speaks Loud and Clear and a Christian . Problem is : Mother American , Father Cuban ; Him born in Canada .
      How can Cruz be Citizen from Birth .???????????????????

      • Poodleguy

        Study Title 8, U.S. Code 1401, subsections (a) thru (g) & you will find Sen’s Cruz & Rubio are both eligible & the obamaliar wasn’t, isn’t nor shall be ever be according to the 5 & 14 year residency requirements. The fact is, the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen”, it was left to the legislators to craft laws in accordance with the Constitution.

        • GQ4U

          Title 8, U.S. Code 1401(d) proves Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen. 1401(g) is for US citizens serving the USA abroad — it does not fit Ted’s mother who moved to Canada to run her own ‘private’ business.

          Sorry Poodle-puppy but you are confused. Foreigners are banned from the US presidency and Ted is a Canadian.

          • Poodleguy

            Sen Cruz held dual citizenship at birth, since he was born in Canada to an American born mother. He has since renounced his Canadian citizenship, so your position is in error. It’s like this: you & I disagree – you think you are right & I believe I am right. I am sure we shall soon know who is right …..

          • GQ4U

            Ted is three nationalities Canadian/Cuban/US. Denouncing one or more of them does not convert you to a Natural Born Citizen, that’s what Obama did and now you want to fall for his lies and fraud against the USA by compounding them with Cruz!!! Natural Born Citizens are never created by legislation, they are born in the country to two citizen parents. See for yourself at: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            No less than 6 Supreme Court cases include the definition of Natural Born:

            1. Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

            2. Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

            3. Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

            4. Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

            5. U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

            6. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

            If Natural Born meant what you believe it does then why from June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, were there eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter
            Article II; Section I; Clause V; “Natural Born Citizen” requirement
            for president and insert US Citizen in its place? They all failed for two main reasons; first congress cannot change the constitution — it must be amended. Second, congress does not have the authority to define Natural Born Citizens. Congress only has authority over naturalization which is a form of adopting citizens.

            If Natural Born meant what you believe it does then why did the Founders add a “grandfather-clause” in Article ll; Section l; Clause V; to allow them to serve as president until a Natural Born Citizen attained the age to meet the full requirements. The Founders knew they were not NBC but their children, born after ratification of the constitution, would be.

            PS: The Founders also renounced their British citizenship but it didn’t make them Natural Born. All NBC are second generation citizens and beyond; born in the nation to citizens parents.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

      • GQ4U

        He is a citizen because of his mother’s dual US/Canadian citizenship, but he is definitely not a Natural Born Citizen as required under Article-2; Section-1; Clause-5; US Constitution.

        Ted Cruz is great but he is not eligible to be president under Article-2 — he is a Canadian 1st. then Cuban, then American.
        http://www.art2superpac.com/is

  • Halftrack2

    If the Rinos. don’t run Ted Cruz…I will write him in….

    • Poodleguy

      No need for that – Sen Cruz will definitely be on the primary ticket where we, the electorate pick the nominee. That’s how it works!

  • john41

    CRUZ=Brain+Guts

  • Tricia Brewer

    He is absolutely eligible to be president.

    • Mike_Travis

      Wrong. Don’t be fooled by the criminals in DC. Read the words of the Founders along with the Constitution. He is not eligible because both of his parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.

      • Poodleguy

        Wrong!!

    • raffaelecafagna

      Mother and Father have to be U.S. Citizens ; Baby born in the U.S. or it`s Territories . Mother was American , Father Cuban ; Him born in Canada .
      How can Cruz be Citizen from Birth .???????????????????

      • Poodleguy

        Your claim has no validity. Example: President Chester A Arthur’s father was born in Ireland & his mother was born in America.

        • Korean_Vet

          And because of “His Lie”–He could have been driven
          from the White-House & Jailed for “Fraud”-! If “Fraud
          or Misrepresentations” is present at the signing of any
          “Legal Document”–it renders that “legal Document”–
          “Null & Void” at the time it Signed–(Not when the
          “Fraud” is discovered-! (Impeachment isn’t Necessary)

  • Tricia Brewer

    Ted Cruz is a man of his word. He definitely has my vote.

    • podunk1

      The most honest and trustworthy presidential candidate for supporting and defending the Constitution and sovereign country
      (FREEDOM!) is Ted Cruz. Cruz is also the most hated of all by progressives, democrats, RINOs, ISIS, muslims, Obama, ‘Hairy Reed’, Pelosi, Boner, Snitch McConnell, globalists, monopolists, the UN. Cruz is essentially blockaded by progressives and the media. Where is Ted? He’s here doing A GOOD JOB, but that isn’t what the “media” wants, so we don’t know he exists… What is an enemy of OUR freedom!

      Can you find anything in the Constitution that you really hate???? All US Officials and judges gleefully promised by oath covenant to support and defend the Constitution, far more convincingly than the thousands of GI’s who GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR THE SAME PROMISE! Jeb promised it, but he will not defend the sovereign US borders, and will instead make sure invaders remain on welfare, working in criminal tax/regulation evading jobs that replaced legal tax paying citizen jobs. Jeb says they can’t legally vote for the traitors who invited them into the county, but knows a lawless person knows all they have to do is break another lesser law and vote without any proof of citizenship! Rubio has the same plan… So does the Hildabeast and almost every other media superstar fighting to get their hands in Uncle Sam’s pocket! Betrayal of oath is treason! Let them be known for what they are and what they HAVEN’T DONE TO DEFEND with facts, wherever they campaign! End the reign of lawlessness!!!

      • GQ4U

        Yes, the US Constitution must be adhered to. Ted Cruz is great but he is not eligible to be president under Article-2.
        http://www.art2superpac.com/is

        • podunk1

          Sorry, but a child born to a citizen is a natural born citizen, and progressive conjecture beyond & over what is, isn’t pertinent. The sole Article II Section 1 text begins and ends with “…No person except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of president…”. You’re using a progressive “play” on words that are not written “in the Law”!

          Amendment 14 Section 3 pertinent text begins and ends with “…No person shall… hold ANY office… having previously taken oath…(who) shall have engaged in insurrection (organized opposition to Constitutional authority) OR rebellion …from government (Constitution) to which one owes allegiance) Betrayal of Constitutional oath/duty to country is treason. I doubt there is a single Maoist or RINO progressive who hasn’t and continues to violate that one daily, from Obama on down the sewer of command. Cruz is one of few who DOES support and defend! It has same weight as any other Constitutional law! We must put our efforts towards defending the Constitution by purging and prosecuting traitors who betray the Constitution as freely as the betray oath and allegiance!

          • GQ4U

            Sorry, but a child born to a citizen is NOT a natural born citizen. A child born to two citizens on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen.

            Ted Cruz was born Canadian to a US/Canadian mother & Cuban dad. Ted is definitely NOT a Natural Born Citizen as that term was understood by the Founders & Framers.
            See — http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            Ted is likely a US citizen on his moms side, the type of citizen he is can be found at 8 USC 1401(d).

            Also you might want to check out Ted’s history on immigration as he once advocated doubling legal immigration and a 500% increase in high skilled work visas.

            And don’t skip his wife Heidi’s long time involvement in the push for a New World Order with her efforts on the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that her hubby Ted called a den of vipers — while she was still working with the CFR. This article fails to mention those bits — doesn’t it.

            Having said that, I admired Ted’s shut down of the government and his bold talk but talk is cheap and he has said things prior to becoming a US Senator that should be seriously looked into.

            “We must put our efforts towards defending the Constitution…”

            Exactly right — that’s why I’m doing it. Obama, Cruz, Rubio & Jindal are all ineligible to be POTUS.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • podunk1

            We’re not England or under the King’s rule. It’s what’s in the text of the Constitution, not what someone discussed or thought in the process that didn’t merit consensus to be written into the text. He was born of a citizen with her natural rights conveyed to him. Natural is a rather simple word.

            You haven’t mentioned Bush, or his qualification for office. Bush is firmly on the record, stating he will not support, defend, or enforce the Constitution or the many, many laws on the books defiled relative to the criminal alien invasion and plunder of the treasury… clearly in his plan is to wait and let congress pass laws to deal with the “immigrants” (they’re criminal invaders working for criminal tax/regulation evading employers)!

            Failure to defend betrays oath/duty which has always been defined by Webster as treason. The Maoist/RINO progressive war on US sovereign independence (natural resources, productivity, & workforce) indicates 38,369,000 fulltime joblessness with an annual $2.58 TRILLION loss in March labor productivity rates. We’re $18++trillion hopelessly in debt and there is zero reasons 2/3 of the labor force CAN’T BE WORKING FULL TIME!!!

            (((250.080.000 population; 166,305,000 workforce @ 1997/2008 avg 66.065%; vs 127,935,000 full time employment (148,331,000 @ 34.5/hrs/40fulltime) yields 38,369,000 not enough jobs. That @ $24.86/hr with 30% employer paid tax/fringes at 2080 hours)))

          • GQ4U

            What does England or King’s rule have to do with American Natural Born Citizens (NBC)? The US constitution does not define the term NBC. However the Framers and ultimately the US citizens in 1787 knew the meaning of NBC when they added to Article-2 and voted to ratify it. It is only our modern lack of knowledge and lots of spinning by Obama minions to protect him that many people like you believe NBC is something different from what it actually is — a child born in the nation of parents who are its citizens. That definition means Obama, Cruz, Rubio & Jindal are NOT NBC.

            Natural is both a noun & an adjective. As an adjective it means ‘present in or produced by nature’ and as a noun it means ‘One suited by nature for a certain purpose or function’ aka a natural.

            The American Declaration of Independence uses the phrase; ” the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” as a just cause for independence. How did they come to this knowledge of “the Laws of Nature”? It certainly wasn’t British Common Law as many would have us believe, after-all it was Britain and its King that we were revolting against. The truth is found elsewhere in a legal treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled; “The Law Of Nations Or The Principals Of The Laws of Nature Applied To The Conduct And Affairs Of Nations And Sovereigns” that was in common use by Congress in the years leading up to the Declaration and continuing to the forming of ideas that produced the US Constitution.

            On Nature, Thomas Jefferson wrote; “Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him …. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of Nature, accompany them into a state of society, their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.”

            An early SCOTUS decision credits Vattel:
            The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
            “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes [aka NBC] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children Naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

            As for Bush he is no friend to America and he allowed several unconstitutional things to happen like the Patriot Act — but he was a Natural Born Citizen.

            On illegal aliens we basically agree and several administration and sessions of congress have failed us by not securing our borders, by not deporting the invaders and by granting their children born here to be counted as citizens by judicial misinterpretation of the 14th. amendment.

            But none of this makes Cruz legally eligible to be president of the USA. He is not a NBC.

            Learn: http://www.art2superpac.com/is

          • podunk1

            I’m sure there was as much difference in thinking within the population during Constitutional debates as there is now… meaning Webster’s old dictionary meaning of natural and born won’t change anything, and the discussion boils down to the progressive deception and division at a critical time in their war against the Constitution. Our war isn’t with you, it’s against our common progressive enemy.
            The war we’re losing is over the Constitution! Their warriors are betraying oath allegiance to defend and support… which is the highest capital crime in the nation! The related pyramid of acts, obstruction, and mockery triggered by Washington far outnumbers the DUI convictions within the USA. We can add Biblical portions of organized crime, fraud, and other felonies to it… especially Clinton and the Obama regime, as well as every democrat and RINO!
            The point is, they are open, in our face, well documented, and extremely vulnerable to prosecution by ANY JUDGE IN THE COUNTRY (Article 6 & 2nd oath/duty). All are equally bound AND EMPOWERED by that supreme law text! Those dominoes are beginning to fall! If we don’t all get together without any distraction, and MAKE THEM FALL TO LAW AND JUSTICE, the country and freedom WILL FALL.

          • GQ4U

            I have no argument with your analysis of our leaderships constant violations of the oath of office and their betrayal of America. The US Constitution is the second highest law, next to God’s law, in the land. That is why I oppose any candidate for office who willing violates the US Constitution simply to gain power. Cruz is such a candidate. He is running in violation of Article-2. How can an unconstitutionally elected president uphold the constitution? The moment he takes the oath of office he becomes a hypocrite, liar, fraud & traitor.

            There are solutions to our problems and we start by restoring constitutional governance. Something we have not had since the Civil War.

          • Peter Smith

            Are you really this ignorant? You had better re-read your sources, albeit slower this time. The mother of Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of the United States of America. Are you also aware that Congress has the authority to grant natural born status? Get used to the idea, Ted Cruz is a citizen.

          • GQ4U

            Congress does NOT have the authority to grant Natural Born status, if you believe that then prove it. You can’t but you’re welcome to try.

            Congress has the authority to create Naturalization laws that grant US citizenship to foreigners who meet the requirements and apply for citizenship. Adopted citizens are never Natural Born Citizens.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/is

          • Peter Smith

            GQ4U, you quoted Article 2, which does not define the term. You went further by referencing Title 8, U.S. Code 1401(d).

            The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

            (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States (his mother) who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; (his father)

            This is YOUR source.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

            Relevance of place of birth[edit]

            Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at UC Davis School of Law, notes that persons born outside the United States to U.S.-citizen parents have not always been born citizens.[51][52]For example, foreign-born children of persons who became naturalized citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens. He also believes that children born in the Panama Canal Zone to at least one U.S. then-citizen between May 24, 1934, and August 4, 1937, when Congress granted citizenship to all such persons, were born without American citizenship. As a result, Chin argues, such persons (for constitutional and political purposes, most notably 2000 U.S. presidential candidate John McCain, born in the Canal Zone on August 28, 1936) may be considered “natural born” only if both

            1. Congress possesses the authority either

            to grant not only citizenship (as is undisputed) but the more specific status of a “natural born” citizen, with an affirmative answer raising the question of whether it can also act to remove that status (and thereby disqualify individuals from the Presidency through action short of stripping them of their citizenship),or

          • GQ4U

            Your post cuts off at the end so your final point is not made.

            Your link — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N… is filled with half truths and weeding out the lies will take considerable time — so it is nullified until the facts are separated out, its a wheat & chaff article not ready for consumption.

            My source for Title 8, U.S. Code 1401(d) is from Cornell School of Law.

            “1. Congress possesses the authority either to grant not only citizenship (as is undisputed) but the more specific status of a “natural born” citizen, with an affirmative answer raising the question of whether it can also act to remove that status” –Peter–

            Congress does not grant citizenship to persons born in the USA they can only grant citizenship to foreigners through naturalization. The constitution does not allow congress to strip citizenship from any citizen except for acts of treason — period.

            If you want to properly define the term Natural Born Citizen then read:
            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            Remember when you research this subject that thousands of Obama’s minions have written volumes misrepresenting Natural Born to protect their false messiah and current traitorous usurper Barack Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama.

            Obama, Cruz, Rubio & Jindal are all ineligible to be POTUS under Article-2.
            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • GQ4U

            I never said that the mother of Ted Cruz wasn’t a NBC. Please pay attention and respond to what I actually write. And you call me ignorant? That’s funny.

          • Peter Smith

            You call his parents “US/Canadian mother & Cuban dad”. His mother is a NBC of the United States, not a US/Canadian. He is a NBC and he will get my vote, and many, many others.

          • GQ4U

            Research Ted’s mom. She applied for and became a Canadian citizen. She is a US & Canadian citizen. Is she a Natural Born Citizen of the USA? Probably, but I haven’t vetted Ted’s mom to be sure — have you?

            You can vote for whomever is allowed to be on the ballot but remember that usurper Obama got on the ballot twice and tens of millions voted for him — but that doesn’t make him a Natural Born Citizen or less of a traitor than he is. So go ahead and vote for an unconstitutional and therefore illegal candidate and support the destruction of our constitution. But remember this, without a constitution we will no longer be a Constitutional Republic. Then its game over.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            Your opinion, or mine for that matter, don’t matter. There is legal standing and justification for Senator Ted Cruz to be a natiral born citizen of the United States. He is a strong supporter of the Constitution that will pull us back from the brink that Obama has lead this nation. Game over, no, America doesn’t give up or quit, EVER. Game On.

          • GQ4U

            “There is legal standing and justification for Senator Ted Cruz to be a natural born citizen of the United States.” –Peter–

            Really??? Please cite your legal standing. Some facts would be nice this time.

            “He [Cruz] is a strong supporter of the Constitution” –Peter–

            No one who is willing to undermine the constitution for political gain is a supporter of the constitution. In America we have a name for those who say one thing and do another — hypocrite. I once admired Cruz but two-faced people are not admirable.

          • Peter Smith

            Okay. Try the McCarron-Walter Act of 1952.

            “One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is before November 14, 1986 but after October `10, 1952.

            “The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least ten years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least five of which were after his or her 14th birthday.”

            Sorry guys, Senator Ted Cruz meets or exceeds the requirement(s). There are others.

            Ted Cruz is NOT undermining the Constitution. He has and will continue to be an active advocate of the U.S. Constitution. And talk about hypocracy, where does the requirement of two U.S. Citizen parents and born in the U.S. or its territories spelled out in the Constitution? Your assertions are less than admirable GQ4U.

          • GQ4U

            Okay. Show me where the current United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) aka. McCarron-Walter Act of 1952 confers Natural Born Citizen (NBC) status to anyone. You can’t because it does not exist.

            The 1952 INA; Title-3(a)(7) likely makes Ted Cruz a US citizen but it does not make him a NBC. If his US citizenship is verifiable then he can serve as a US Congressman or a US Senator but NOT a US President.

            Cruz is not a NBC and is ineligible to be POTUS.
            Why don’t you read the link below that verifies who are NBC? Pay particular attention to the section on attempts by Congress to eliminate NBC from POTUS eligibility and insert (US citizen) – ask yourself why.
            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            You’ve cited one article time after time. In my other earlier past, in the past few minutes, I gave another case for the Ted Cruz NBC.
            Cruz is eligible and has a very good chance if he makes it through the primaries. You put the burden of proof on my side only. Turn about is fair play GQ4U
            Herder.
            Quote the written text, straight from the written document we revere as the United States Constitution, on the true definition of NBC. I’ve cited a couple of interpretations supporting my assertions, you’ve given ONE. I have supported the Constitution my entire life, even read it time or two. I’ll wait.

            PS Your goats like a little singing in the evening. Your problem is you’ll assume it is serenading, not attempting to calm the herd. I guess whatever floats your boat buddy.

          • GQ4U

            Yo are living in La La Land my friend. You haven/t presented any proof to support that Ted Cruz is Natural Born Citizen. Why? Because it doesn’t exist.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html — is not one article, its 10-pages of evidence and proof of what a NBC is. Your refusal to read it leaves you drowning in your own stupidity.

            Liberals often argue based on their ‘feelings’ because the have zero facts — you argue like a liberal.

            You ignore the obvious. Go to — http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html — and pay particular attention to the section on attempts by Congress to eliminate NBC from POTUS eligibility and insert US citizen – ask yourself why. You can’t answer that can you?

            Ted Cruz is ineligible.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/is

          • Peter Smith

            I’m living in LaLa Land? Are you sure? You have supplied zero evidence that Senator Ted Cruz is not a NBC. YOU can’t prove it because YOUR “evidence” doesn’t exist. You still haven’t given me the Constitutional definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.

            Your 10 whole pages of Founding Fathers statements that failed to define NBC. The cases heard by SCOTUS that have never heard a case that fits the status of Ted Cruz. These same SCOTUS decisions may have ruled on an individuals NBC status, they fell short of clearly defining the term. You have commentary that the authors try to guess the meaning but are not definitive. Are you now going to throw the writings of Vattel into the mix? The writings of a man that was DEAD before the Constitution was even written.

            I don not argue based on “feelings”. However my gut tells me you’re an idiot. You can’t prove the Constitutional intent of “Natural Born Citizen”, you’re just too disingenuous and gutless to say so.

            The problem with all of the Congressional bills that failed is because of the lack of a definition of NBC by our Founding Fathers.

            I’m still waiting for the clear NBC definition from the written document that is the Constitution.

          • GQ4U

            You truly are too stupid to understand that the US constitution is not a dictionary. The word religion also appears in the constitution without defining what religion is. Like Natural Citizen the definition of religion must be sought elsewhere and I have given you access to dozens of definitions for NBC.

            As for Vattel:
            The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

            “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” -SCOTUS-

            “Emer de Vattel (25 April 1714 – 28 December 1767) was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law”

            Peter, it seems the whole world, Including our Founders, respects Vattel’s “Law of Nations” but you delude yourself into believing you are smarter than the whole world.

            Using defamation as a debate tactic only proves you have no facts and must resort to kindergarten tactics in desperation — you have lost already.

          • Peter Smith

            Hey, GREAT NEWS! I found someone needing a village idiot and I traded you even on a pet monkey they had!

            You speak of ignorance as though you are staring into a mirror,…..fitting. Why don’t you go along and add Christian Wolff, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, and Hugo Grotius as the other men that “defines” NBC? They are the sources of Vattel.

            REALLY! The WHOLE WORLD believes in the works of Vattel? Delusional is a apt description alright, but you are referencing the wrong side in this argument. You feel that the definitions of a group of men who died before we were even a nation are still relevant and all defining for OUR nation. I have presented facts and the assertions made by others. These assertions are by people, much more intelligent than yourself, living in the here and now. You’re either delusional or just plain stupid You just don’t accept their assertions. That is okay by me. The nation will win, and I’ll be one happy camper, if Ted Cruz becomes the next POTUS. He has my support.

          • GQ4U

            Caution!!! Most states ban mating with monkeys so proceed with caution. Also many medical researchers believe that monkey mating may be the original source of HIV AIDS. On a high note, I am glad you found someone you can relate to on your level.

          • Peter Smith

            You’re old lady seems to have no issues with the monkey. I gave the monkey to her. Granted, the monkey is a little on the small size for monkeys, but your old lady says it’s an upgrade. Imagine that!

          • raffaelecafagna

            It takes 2 U.S. Citizens to give birth to a NBC in the U.S. or it`s Territories.
            You can`t have an American Mother and a Cuban Father and a kid born in Canada . This is what we are saying ; you don`t agree with all these Facts . Why is that . ?????????

          • Peter Smith

            Because there is legal standing to support his being NBC. The Constitution did not define NBC requirements, why is that? I disagree with your definition of the NBC status. But don’t you worry, my great grand parents were natualized citizens. My grand parents and parents are natural born citizens of the Untited States, as am I. I also believe, based on the respect given our Constitution by Senator Cruz, he would disqualify himself if he felt he did not meet the NBC requirement.

          • GQ4U

            Nice & accurate reply raffael.

            See — http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html — for strong evidence to support your knowledge.

        • Judy McKinney

          How did Obama get to be president? His father was sure not a US citizen. ??

          • Robert Wilson

            Also he was not born here, but HATCHED BY THE EGG WHERE SOROS SQUATS.

          • GQ4U

            “How did Obama get to be president?” –Judy–
            Short answer — lies, cover-ups and more lies.

            Nancy Pelosi was supposed to vet the candidate at the DNC Convention and she falsified the documents.

            The US House of Representatives is supposed to vet the POTUS winner of the electoral college but they did not. The House Speaker was also Nancy Pelosi.

            The media failed to vet this candidate but they, along with the Senate, did vet McCain on suspicions that he was not an Article-2, Natural Born Citizen.

            The public opposition got stuck on Obama’s place of birth & birth certificate issue which was a red herring. The truth is Obama’s daddy was a British/Kenyan so Junior was a British/Kenyan too. His mother was American but it takes two citizen parents to create a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) and to be president one must be a NBC. Read Article-2; Section-1; Clause-5.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • raffaelecafagna

            Please , just for curiosity , who is ( or was ) his father .???
            Frank. M. or the Kenyan man . ????

          • Robert Wilson

            We don’t know, they don’t know, HE DON’T KNOW.

        • Terry Watts

          Lol GQ4U !! so that’s why he is on the 2016 ballot !! His mother is an American Citizen got it ?? He WILL win the nomination..after all, the Muzzie in Chief was born in Kenya and look where that TRAITOR is !!!

          • GQ4U

            So your recommendation to remedy traitor Obama is to elect another illegal president? Cruz is ineligible because he is not a Natural Born Citizen. In fact he wasn’t even born in the USA. His mother is a US citizen who also became a Canadian citizen, his father was a Cuban citizen and they resided in Canada full time when & where Ted was born. Ted may be a US citizen — but he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

        • Peter Smith

          That’s not true, the Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen”. Ted Cruz has an American Citizen mother and would be defined as a citizen by birth.

          • GQ4U

            Please pay attention Peter. Read my second sentence in the above post and see that I stated; “The US constitution does not define the term NBC.” However, no less than six (6) SCOTUS decisions include a definition of what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/is

            Second, Ted Cruz may be a US citizen through his mother — but he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen as that term was understood by the Framers who added it as a requirement to be POTUS. Learn the truth my friend and understand that not all US citizens are Natural Born Citizens.

            Learn: http://www.art2superpac.com/is

          • Peter Smith

            Sorry, but I believe you are wrong. I’m pretty sure Senator Cruz already had the NBC issue in hand prior to his announcement. He is a good man and this country needs the likes of him to bring us back to what we were and what the Founding Fathers intended. What we have right now is not it.

          • GQ4U

            “Sorry, but I believe you are wrong. I’m pretty sure Senator Cruz already had the NBC issue in hand prior to his announcement.” –Peter–

            Sorry, but Cruz knows the US Constitution and is willfully choosing the Obama minion rhetoric from the past several years that intentionally misleads on the definition of Natural Born.

            I currently believe Cruz is a US citizen and serves legally as a US Senator under the requirements prescribed in the US Constitution for Senators & Representatives. But he is not eligible under the constitutional requirements to be POTUS.

            Listen Peter, you can be a sheep and follow the butt of the sheep in front of you or you can be an American Eagle soaring high and seeing things as they really are.

            If you want good men to lead then choose one of the many eligible candidates like Carson, Paul, Walker, Huckabee, and others, but steer clear of would be usurpers like Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and other ineligibles.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            We’ll just have a difference of opinion here. I believe Senator Cruz meets the requirements. I also believe that based on the respect for the Constitution Ted Cruz has exhibited, he would disqualify himself if he was not eligible for the office of POTUS.
            I am far from being a sheep. Your asertions do have you being compared with an Equus africanus asinus. You should really do better research before proclaiming your “usurpers” list. You are wide of the targete.i.e. swing and a miss on all three counts. Your “eligible” candidates list is sound, and with the exction of Paul, I would be content with my vote backing any one of them, should they be the conservative nominee.

          • GQ4U

            ” I believe Senator Cruz meets the requirements. –Peter–

            You voice your opinion about the eligibility of Cruz but don’t back it up with facts — sounds like herd mentality to me. [insert sheep noises here]

            “I also believe that based on the respect for the Constitution Ted Cruz has exhibited, he would disqualify himself if he was not eligible for the office of POTUS.” –Peter–

            I thought he would — but he didn’t — now I can’t respect the man’s run for POTUS or feigned support of the constitution.

            You have a problem with Rand Paul? Is it fact based or more rhetoric driven opinions? You feign support of the constitution while turning your back on the strongest constitutional candidate. What a hypocrite you are.

            I am sorry to find you so adamantly clinging to your stupidity over your love affair with Cruz who talks a good game but apparently does not believe what he says. Next election cycle we can back some foreign ISIS member for POTUS because the NBC eligibility requirement will be history — along with the Republic.

            We do not have a difference of opinion. You voice opinions and I state facts.

            PS: Man-up Peter & call me names in the common vernacular. I see you hiding behind “Equus Africanus Asinus” which only proves what a cowardly a$$ you are.

            Cruz, Rubio, Jindal & Obama are ineligible.
            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            Sure there is justification. I support Cruz because he is one of the most capable and competent candidates right now. He is also the Senator from my state so I have a better comfort level with his policies. My stand on Rand Paul is that he still has a little too much of the Libertarian ideals of his father. The Libertarian platform has some sections I can not and will not support.
            You’re a disingenuous donkey making the ISIS comments.
            Man up? I will just as soon as I feel I’m having a conversation with a man. Take some Midol and go home little boy.

          • GQ4U

            Once again you voice your opinion about the eligibility of Cruz but don’t back it up with facts — sounds like herd mentality to me.

            Midol – is not for boys, it is meant for menstrual cramps which is something you may be experiencing.

            Rand Paul is the candidate that supports the US Constitution far more than any other candidate.

            Ron Paul was a friend of Ronald Reagan who was one of the best governors I ever had and arguably the 2nd. best US President next to George Washington.

            ISIS comment is regarding the destruction of the US Constitution under your misguided fantasy about POTUS eligibility requirements. Just how dumb are you? (Don’t answer — its a rhetorical question)

            I hope all Texans aren’t as brain dead as you are.

            Cruz is constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS.
            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            Okay “goat herder of the lace up boots”. How about Harvard Law Review?

            http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

            And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

            2While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15

            Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.×

            So be a good goat herder and get the flock out of here.
            My Midol reference was for YOU to stop acting like an OTR B-tch. You obviously missed that one.

            I voted for Ronald Reagan and would again. Yep. The Libertarian views of Rand Paul, mixed in with other Conservative principles makes him a candidate I can and would only support as a last resort, sorry.

            My understanding of and respect for the Constitution is far from fantasy. You speak of being brain dead, for most Californians, that’s a given, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Tell me GQ4U, exactly where do you find the detailed requirements, in the Constitution, that supports YOUR assertion that Ted Cruz is ineligible? I’ll wait, this ought to be good. You might even prove the “benefit of doubt” was wasted and irrelevant.

          • GQ4U

            1. “Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no
            question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a
            “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.” –Peter–

            Are you claiming to have found the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the constitution? Please do tell us where. You have no idea of the definition of a NBC.

            2. “Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.” –Peter–

            Now your ignorance is spewing out uncontrollably. Cruz’s daddy was not “naturalized” until many years after Ted’s birth so the defunct Naturalization Act of 1790 and every Naturalization Act since cannot bestow NBC status retroactively — in fact no act of congress can create a NBC and neither can your wishful thinking.

            3. “Tell me GQ4U, exactly where do you find the detailed requirements, in the Constitution, that supports YOUR assertion that Ted Cruz is ineligible?” –Peter–

            Tell me Peter, exactly where do you find the detailed requirements, in the Constitution, that supports YOUR assertion that Ted Cruz is eligible? In case you didn’t know the constitution is not a dictionary filled with definitions. It doesn’t define NBC, it doesn’t define religion either and its also in the constitution.

            To understand the definition one needs to look elsewhere. Chief Justice Waite in the Minor v Happersett decision put it like this:
            “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or Natural Born Citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction (14th. amendment) without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class (14th. amendment class) there have been doubts, but never as to the first (NBC).

            Note that Justice Waite understood that it was necessary to understand NBC in context of the Framers “nomenclature” (common understanding at the time) in order to properly define who is a NBC.

            Ted Cruz may be a US citizen but he is not a NBC plus he was born a Canadian to a mother who was a US/Canadian and a father who was a Cuban National living in Canada. Ted is even further removed from NBC status than ineligible Barrack Obama.

            4. Your slanderous name calling only makes you seem desperate and grasping at thin air to make your fictitious case for your boy Ted. Sorry pal, you failed yet again.

            5. “Harvard Law Review? http://harvardlawreview.org/20…” –Peter–

            Are you joking, I read this weeks ago and its so partisan and devoid of facts it funny anyone believes these jokers from Harvard writing about former Harvard Law Review presidents Obama & Cruz. Of course any moron that accepts a weak biased presentation like this over six Supreme Court definitions of NBC is truly a gullible idiot.

            Cruz is constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS.
            http://www.art2superpac.com/is

          • Peter Smith

            What a disingenuous piece of work you are GQ4U. The items 1 and 2 are actual exerts from the Harvard Law review. Number 3 is my statement for you to produce YOUR conclusive proof of Senator Cruz’s inelgibility. My assertions for the NBC status of Ted Cruz is based on dozens of other writings confirming NBC on Ted Cruz.

            As far as I am concerned, and until you can prove the “slanderous” comments are truly slanderous, they remain. Sorry.

            I believe the authors of the Harvard Law Review are probably better sources in this kind of dispute than your one article with TEN WHOLE PAGES of “facts?” that are in no way definitive to the NBC status of Ted Cruz. Your six SCOTUS decision have in no way answered or ruled to the legal standing of Ted Cruz or of one in a similar nature. Your proof fails the smell test once again, Sorry.

            “Cruz is constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS.” Your statement without the evidence. I am still waiting on the Constitutional written verbage that defines the Founding Fathers intent for NBC. Well?

          • GQ4U

            You are pathetic. You confuse naturalization and/or born on US soil and/or born to one citizen parent anywhere on earth as being the same as a Natural Born Citizen. They are not the same.

            The Harvard Law Review article comes to its conclusion by leaving out all the facts contrary to their desired conclusion. Its a sham piece written by partisan hacks not investigative journalists or unbiased legal scholars. I suppose you also accept anthropomorphic global warming as fact since university egghead has written articles about it. Are you to dumb to think for yourself Peter?

          • Peter Smith

            Blow me! You think you have it right? I’m far from pathetic and I absolutely understand the difference of “naturalized” vs. “Natural Born Citizen”. Let me ask you a question. Ted Cruz has never applied for or been given “naturalization”. Yet, he is a US Senator. Curious. Every piece of written material that substantiates my conclusion is discounted be you. Yet you cling to your ONE link and the 10 WHOLE PAGES of written material. Even after there is zero evidence in those ten pages that bring any type of illumination to the circumstances of Senator Cruz. Again, curious.
            Oh, and GQ4U, global warming is a myth. And yes, I came to that conclusion by reading and gathering as many facts as I could. and made an informed decision. You base your decisions, all of them it would seem, on TEN WHOLE PAGES.
            You speak of thinking for ones self. You have no personal experience on this topic so you should probably just remain silent on the matter. Enjoy.

          • GQ4U

            1) “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”
            –Article-1; Section-3; Clause-3; Us Constitution–

            The constitution requires that one be a US citizen to be a US Senator. Ted serves legally as Senator.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
            ===================================

            2) “No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.”
            –Article-1; Section-2; Clause-2; US Constitution–

            The constitution requires that one be a US citizen to be a US Representative. Ted could serve legally as as a US Representative.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
            ===================================

            3) “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.”
            –Article-2; Section-1; Clause-5; US Constitution–

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

            The constitution requires that one be a Natural Born Citizen to be POTUS or VP. Ted cannot legally serve as POTUS.
            ==================================

            Fact Check:
            1) = US citizen.
            2) = US citizen.
            3) = Natural Born Citizen.

            Which of these is not the same?
            Why is the “grandfather clause” included in #3?
            Why is the “grandfather clause” no longer in effect?
            Does the US Constitution define “US citizen”?
            Does the US Constitution define “Natural Born”?
            Is Peter Smith capable of logical deduction?
            Is Peter to dumb to think for himself?
            ===================================

            Why don’t you pull your peter out of your boy toy long enough to research this on your own. You can start here:

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            — or — http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

            — or — http://www.obamareleaseyourrecords.com/2010/05/atty-mario-apuzzo-obamas-natural-born.html

            — or — http://www.obamareleaseyourrecords.com/2013/08/congressional-research-service-ted-cruz.html

            — or — several of the so called birther sites that delve into parentage and location of birth requirements to be a NBC. (Most focus on Obama)

            Attorney, Mario Apuzzo specialize in citizenship and nationality law and has written extensively on the ineligibility of Obama and more recently on Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, and Haley.

            Blow me??? — thanks for the offer but I don’t swing that way; I choose to blow your mind instead.

          • Peter Smith

            You really are as ignorant as I believe, WOW! The point is since Ted Cruz was never naturalized to become a citizen, and the fact that he holds the office of Senator kind of narrows things down a bit. He also never applied for “Citizenship through Parents” prior to his 18th birthday.

            Since these are the facts of the issue, it kind narrows his citizenship standing. And just so you’ll know, I am fully aware of the requirements for Congress. I can read as well. The requirements for the office of President and Vice-President are the flies in the ointment. The Founding Fathers defined the requirements for Congress and then failed to define “Natural Born Citizen”.

            This link might help you, but I’m sure you’ll deny this as well. I can but try.

            http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship

            Boy toys are for boys, GQ4U, a.k.a. “little boy”. I’m a grown MAN. You fall short of being able to make that statement.
            I think it is funny that Harvard Law is a sham, but Cornell Law makes the grade? Really?

            You give me “four (4)” links to your “proof” about Ted Cruz and his NBC status. Funny thing one two of your “sources” are exactly the same. Your “expert” on the NBC status of Ted Cruz and others cannot site any law about the particular issues and status of Ted Cruz. You are also quoting that tired old argument about Vattel and his view on NBC requirements. He probably didn’t even consider the idea of a Constitutional Republic. My link, to the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, a government agency does site the legal criteria for citizenship. The legal criteria met by Senator Cruz.

            The direction of your swinging, with a post name like GQ4U? You really don’t want to hear my full assessment of that one buddy BOY. And as to “blowing my mind”, you couldn’t blow the mind of the gift monkey your old lady now has. Curious thing is I understand she’s hiding the monkey from you. Perhaps you’re trying to “blow the monkey” in a whole new sense. That is definitely a different direction for your “swinging”, you mentioned. I’ll give you that.

          • GQ4U

            1) “The Founding Fathers defined the requirements for Congress” –Peter–
            Really, where is the definition of US citizen in the constitution?

            2) “Founding Fathers… failed to define “Natural Born Citizen” –Peter-
            Correct, they also didn’t define US citizen, or religion, or free speech, or militia, or any other terms. This may surprise you but the US Constitution is not a dictionary. The Framers and the citizens who ratified the constitution understood these terms so listing definitions was pointless.

            4) “I am fully aware of the requirements for Congress” –Peter–
            If that’s true then why did the Framers change Madison’s original POTUS eligibility from US citizen to Natural Born Citizen in the final draft. If a US citizen is the same as a Natural Born Citizen then why did John Jay recommend that change?

            5) “My link, to the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, a government
            agency does site the legal criteria for citizenship. The legal criteria
            met by Senator Cruz.” –Peter–
            Yes it does and Cruz is a US citizen and can legally serve as a Congressman or Senator if he meets all the other eligibility requirements. He does not meet the eligibility requirement to be POTUS. Again you fail to note that immigration laws can grant or deny citizenship to certain individuals born under certain conditions and those laws can be changed at the whim of congress — but it never grants or denies Natural Born Citizenship because it lacks the power to do so. Currently every illegal alien who gives birth in the US has citizenship bestowed on their child even though the parents may both be foreign invaders. Under your faulty belief all these anchor babies have a clear shot at becoming president. This type of foreign influence is exactly why the Framers restrict the presidency to none but a Natural Born Citizen. (Learn you history)

            6) “Vattel and his view on NBC requirements. He probably didn’t even consider the idea of a Constitutional Republic.” –Peter–
            What does the form of government have to do with defining who is a Natural Born Citizen? It doesn’t. Prior to creating the constitution the Founders knew what a Natural Born Citizen was. See John Jay’s letter to George Washington suggesting changing the POTUS eligibility from US citizen to Natural Born Citizen — which was implemented.

            7) “I think it is funny that Harvard Law is a sham, but Cornell Law makes the grade?” –Peter–
            Your ignorance is boundless. The Harvard Review was an ‘article’ expressing an ‘opinion’ by two politicos. The links to Cornell Law reference the actual law, code, statute, constitution or judicial decision and is devoid of personal views. You are in serious trouble if you can’t tell the difference.

          • Peter Smith

            1) No the requirements are in the Constitution. The definition is not. However, the term used is “Citizen”, not “NBC”. The Constitution also gives the age requirements and the length of citizenship requirement. Since the age requirement is 25/30 years and the citizenship is only 7 years, they require only citizenship.

            2) I agree, the Constitution is not a dictionary. You assert the FF’s knew their intended definition of NBC. Then why did they need Vattel? Why did you say the Vattel defined the term? You said “they knew”. Obviously not.

            3) You did not use a third point. Counting must be tenuous for you.

            4) I do not KNOW for a fact, but the articles I have read is they did not want one of less than NBC status having control of the armies of the nation.

            5) Based on the US Citizenship and Immigration Service definitions, Ted Cruz meets the requirement for “citizenship at birth”, i.e. Natural Born Citizen.

            6) John Jay was a FF, a diplomat, and patriot. His word carried real weight with the argument. Vattel was just another “Saltwater Wetback”. His definitions did not and do not matter.

            7) Your Cornell Law does not define NBC any better than the Constitution. It goes straight to the written document that is the Constitution. And it STILL fails with defining the term NBC The country is in trouble if what you portray yourself to be is mistaken for intelligent. Sorry, but that is the truth. It doesn’t fit your assertions, but the truth none the less.

          • GQ4U

            “However, the term used is “Citizen”, not “NBC”.” –Peter–

            Wrong again Peter — read Article-2; Section-1; Clause-5; US Constitution. It clearly states that to be POTUS ones must be a NBC — have attained the age of 35 years — and lived 14 years within the US.

            You expose your foolishness by constantly bringing up Immigration law which cannot create a NBC. You can’t find any laws that create a NBC — none.

          • Peter Smith

            Hey, dumb-ss. Why don’t you read and comprehend moron? My 1) response was about Congress. I have read the Constitution and understand it very well. The requirements for The House or the Senate just states “citizen”.
            And once again you prove your complete ignorance. Your assertion is patently foolish, you own words even say so. You state that I am constantly bringing up Immigration LAW. That law does not “create” the NBC status of a person, it defines the requirements to be recognized as a NBC. This is Immigration LAW, not your personal opinion.

          • GQ4U

            Your previous response was; “1) No the requirements are in the Constitution. The definition is not. However, the term used is “Citizen”, not “NBC”. The Constitution also gives the age requirements and the length of citizenship requirement. Since the age requirement is 25/30 years and the citizenship is only 7 years, they require only citizenship.” and now you post; “My 1) response was about Congress. I have read the Constitution and understand it very well. The requirements for The House or the Senate just states “citizen”. –Peter–
            We are discussing the eligibility requirements to be POTUS and what you posted is completely wrong. Then to cover your ignorance you lie and say you were talking about congress. Nice try, but it seems you’re the dishonest moronic one here. By the way the constitutional requirement for Senators & Representatives is not “citizen” its “citizen of the United States” among others limitations. For POTUS its Natural Born Citizen.

            “That law does not “create” the NBC status of a person, it defines the requirements to be recognized as a NBC. This is Immigration LAW, not your personal opinion.” –Peter–

            You can’t find any law, including immigration law, that creates a Natural Born Citizen. If you do post it here.

            Proof I am correct about NBC is found here:
            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            As usual, a complete anal diatribe from GQ4U, you are consistent. YOU were the initiator of the Congressional requirements, I responded. No lies here GQ4U. I do not need a lies or subterfuge to get past an ignorant POS like yourself.

            The US Immigration and Naturalization Service does not create citizenship or have a law specifically stating who are NBC’s. It does list the various criteria and definitions used in this United States of America for the different citizenships in this nation. You are the only one speaking of creating a NBC. NBCs are BORN, not created. Get used to it.

          • GQ4U

            ” NBCs are BORN, not created. Get used to it.” –Peter–
            Exactly what I’ve been saying all along. They are not and cannot be created by an act of congress but are born in the nation to two citizen parents. Are you finally waking up to the truth?

            ” YOU were the initiator of the Congressional requirements” –Peter–
            Really? Read your own words below:
            “Ted Cruz has never applied for or been given “naturalization”. Yet, he is a US Senator. Curious.”
            You brought up qualifications to be a senator, not me.
            I have always maintained Cruz is eligible for Congress but not eligible to be POTUS — because he’s not.

            “The US Immigration and Naturalization Service does not… have a law specifically stating who are NBC’s,” –Peter–
            Funny that no law or the US Constitution defines NBC but you are stupid enough to keep asking for a Constitutional definition.

            PS: What’s your fascination with anal? Is that where you get most of your facts from — pull them out of your a$$.

          • Peter Smith

            “Exactly what I’ve been saying all along. They are not and cannot be created by an act of congress but are born in the nation to two citizen parents. Are you finally waking up to the truth?”—GQ4U

            You cannot prove your definition based on the laws of this land. There are numerous other defined, legal definitions of “Natural Born Citizen” that I have provided. Your definition/assertion does not hold water.

            Why don’t you add the rest of my statement? It makes the assertion complete, instead of your half-cocked assertions. You know, “It does list the various criteria and definitions used in this United States of America for the different citizenships in this nation.” Your entire argument is the Constitution states that only a NBC can be president (or vice-president) and yet you cannot bring any legal definition of NBC. I have supplied this information, but since it contradicts your assertions, this information is ignored.

            So exactly who is the anal one? You know, as soon as I started reading your post, a noxious smell permeated the room. Thank God for windows, room fans, and air freshener.

          • GQ4U

            ” There are numerous other defined, legal definitions of “Natural Born Citizen” that I have provided.” –Peter–
            Really? What historical documents prove your assertions?

            Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
            ~~The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar~~
            Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite

            And you cite last months Harvard Law Review. You are a joke. I am ROTF-LMAO

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

            “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

            -sshole, it’s like I’ve been saying, where does this or any other decision by SCOTUS rule on the specifics of Senator Ted Cruz or any other in similar circumstance?

            I’ve cited more than last months HLR. You’re just too stupid to acknowledge and understand what i have presented. It is morons such as yourself that are the last failing of this nation. You should be so proud.

          • GQ4U

            “I’ve cited more than last months HLR” –Peter–
            You haven’t cited anything yet. There is no law or statute that defines a NBC and there is no law or statute that creates a NBC because its not possible.

            You know full well that no case has been allowed to proceed against Obama’s ineligibility do to the false assumption that no one has “Standing” to bring a case to the courts. A straight up Natural Born case has never been heard but that does not change the true definition of a NBC. In your ignorance you cite the Minor case as if it somehow supports your idiotic interpretation that every person born a citizen is a NBC. It doesn’t.

            In the Minor case Chief Justice Waite writes “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
            Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born
            in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon
            their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens…”

            First, Cruz was not born in this country.

            Second, he was not born of parents (plural) who were its citizens (plural) and is therefore not a NBC but is a citizen by statute and statutes can never create a NBC.

            I am proud, proud to stand up for the US Constitution. Its halfwits like you who shred the constitution because it serves your desires of the day. Obama supporters did and do that and so do you. If you want to see a moron — look in the mirror.

          • Peter Smith

            This entire argument boils down to the DEFINITION of “Natural Born Citizen”. There is no Constitutional definition. There are a variety of current definitions being used. I have cited several of these definitions. Definitions that when applied, give NBC status to Ted Cruz and others.
            This argument also boils down to the fact that I disagree that you definition is the only accepted/acceptable definition.
            Your proud to stand up for the Constitution? If this is your best stand, please sit down.

          • GQ4U

            Not true!!! This boils down to your “modern-day” interpretation as opposed to the historical definition of a Natural Born Citizen. The term was included in the constitutional requirement to be president back in 1787 and the books, documentation & letters from that period must be understood before morons like you can know wnat a NBC is.

            You have failed to show anything that legitimizes your opinion that congress can create a NBC. If your opinion was correct (its not) then congress could remove Natural Born status at will. You should be in constant fear.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            Yes GQ4U, it is true. I agree that the term “Natural Born Citizen” is included in many early documents. They all have the same short comings of Article 2. The TERM is used but the DEFINITION of their term was not.
            8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
            Like it or not, Ted Cruz meets the requirements to be a “citizen at birth”, a.k.a. natural born citizen.

          • GQ4U

            First, you are wrong, there are definitions provided in historical documents you have failed to find and read them.

            Second, 8 U.S. Code § 1401(a-g) – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth does not cover Natural Born Citizenship. I challenge you to find any US Code or INA law other than the now defunct INA of 1790 that defines or alters the known definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Good luck!

            There are dozens of documents that support that a NBC is one born in the country to two (2) citizen parents. Read the following:
            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            You may as well admit your ignorance and yield to the facts.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            Please point out the definitions, you can’t.

            Second, did you read the title of 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth? A “citizen at birth” IS a NBC. Challenge is complete.

            Give your “10 whole pages a break”, I’ve read them about 20 times and they are still INCOMPLETE.

            Stop looking at the mirror to define the word ignorance. Just reading your posts is sufficient.

          • GQ4U

            “Please point out the definitions, you can’t.” –Peter–
            See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            “Second, did you read the title of 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and
            citizens of United States at birth? A “citizen at birth” IS a NBC.
            Challenge is complete.” –Peter–
            I read — and understood — “8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and
            citizens of United States at birth” which apparently you haven’t done. Natural Born Citizenship is not in 8 U.S. Code § 1401. Your biggest challenge is not complete — its your mental deficiency.

            “Give your “10 whole pages a break”, I’ve read them about 20 times and they are still INCOMPLETE.” –Peter–
            I doubt you’ve read them at all — or your comprehension level is at ~0%~ if you can’t find the several definitions proving that a NBC is one born in the country to two (2) citizen parents. Calling you a moron is elevating you to a higher level than you deserve.

            Read the following (again? Peter):
            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
            — or have someone with a brain read it to you.

            PS: Most Christians are honest — what’s your problem. Why do you love Cruz more than God or the US Constitution?

            You are to dumb to continue wasting my time on so this is my final reply. I hope you learn to see the the propaganda blinding you — but I doubt you will.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            Hey stupid! 8 U.S. Code § 1401. is all about citizens at birth, Nationals, Natural Born Citizens, they are all the same. You are definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
            And GQ4U, don’t EVER question my love of God or my love of this nation. You have not EARNED that right. You earn it by facing me man to man and saying it to my face. I know you will never do that because the screen and keyboard don’t knock your teeth out, I do.

            Dumb and a waste of time sums up my thoughts of you in a marginally adequate way.

          • GQ4U

            “Hey stupid! 8 U.S. Code § 1401. is all about citizens at birth, Nationals, Natural Born Citizens, they are all the same.” –Peter–

            Talk about being stupid you win first prize in the ‘dumb as a stump’ contest. They are NOT all the same

            1) Nationals are not citizens and cannot vote.

            2) There are various forms of US citizens in 1401.

            3) Natural Born is not in 8 U.S. Code § 1401.

            4) You have never shown a code or statute that includes a NBC. Natural born citizens existed before congress wrote the first INA, Code or Statute.

            Use your brain to think instead of sitting on it.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            You are correct and I am mistaken. A national is not a NBC. I should have re-read my post prior to hitting the “Post as” icon. But facts are facts, a “natural born citizen” is a citizen “at birth” or “by birth”. The title of 8 US Code 1401 is Nationals and “Citizens at birth.” Holy sh-t, it is also a US CODE. One of the things I have never produced. Go pound sand up your -ss buddy.

          • GQ4U

            You are right when you say a Natural born Citizen is a citizen at birth. All children born in the USA are citizens at birth but not all are born as Natural born Citizens. A NBC must be born under the jurisdiction of the USA to two citizen parents. As an example, “Anchor” babies are not NBC and cannot be POTUS even though they are US citizens.

            “You are correct and I am mistaken.” –Peter–
            Finally something we can agree on.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            Your premise is wrong. The facts are the facts. The legal guidelines for a NBC status extend beyond your narrow definition of being born to two US citizen parents at a location under the jurisdiction of the US. On this YOU are mistaken, I agree on that, though you won’t. Good bye, I’m through with your dumb-ss.

          • GQ4U

            🙁 your Christianity is showing your true nature. God is not fooled by it and neither am I. 🙂

          • GQ4U

            “6) John Jay was a FF, a diplomat, and patriot. His word carried real
            weight with the argument. Vattel was just another “Saltwater Wetback”.
            His definitions did not and do not matter.” –Peter–

            Apparently the SCOTUS thought more highly of Vattel.

            The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
            “Vattel… is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes [NBC] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

            You must have been a victim of public school who stopped learning when you dropped out.

          • Peter Smith

            WOW! How can I ever compete with that kind of ………. tripe? All of this and STILL no definition of NBC. Not one written definitive statement that once and for all defines the requirements for a person to bear the title, “Natural Born Citizen”.
            Your just a victim of ignorance. I am a “victim” of public schools and a college degree. And everything has worked out just fine for me, my family, my wife, my children, my grandchildren and on down the line. Sorry, I didn’t drop out.

          • GQ4U

            Apparently old man you never learned to comprehend what you read. My last post gave you a definition of a NBC but your head is so far up Cruz’s butt you can’t see it. The site I’ve been posting has many more examples of of what makes one a NBC.
            college? Please don’t don’t use your diploma to cover up the US Constitution and six SCOTUS decisions that spell out who is a NBC. Think man, think.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            PS: Tripe makes a tasty soup. 😉

          • Peter Smith

            This “old” man comprehends well above your levels of incompetence GQ4U. Your “definitions” are incomplete and in no way are the Law of the Land of this great nation.
            My education is proof that I have the ability to learn and lead, and not just follow in the footsteps of morons such as you, GQ4U. The Constitution Spells out the requirements for NBC? A requirement with no definition is a useless tool. And the SCOTUS decisions have never ruled on the specifics of Ted Cruz, and many others. Once again, useless tools. This however is a common grund for you, a useless tool.
            Yes and tripe does make a tasty soup. However, I clean the tripe before the soup preparation begins.

          • GQ4U

            ” The Constitution Spells out the requirements for NBC? A requirement with no definition is a useless tool.” –Peter–
            There is a definition — you are just too stupid to understand it. I gave you a link that spells it out and it has dozens of proof to back it up. You fall for the propaganda created by Obama minions and those who would destroy the constitution. Your claim makes the Founders & Framers to be fools who added a “useless tool” to the POTUS eligibility requirement — you are the fool if you believe that.

            PS: Stop cleaning tripe with your tongue — its effecting you brain.

          • Peter Smith

            There is a definition? In a SCOTUS decision ruling on the NBC status of a person born to a US
            citizen mother, a Cuban father, born in Canada? I’m sure this ruling incorporates all of the Immigration Law definitions? I’m game GQ4U, show me ……. WELL! I’M WAITING!
            I am a supporter of the Constitution and will cast my vote for the Conservative candidate that embodies that document and will defend the Constitution (and this country) against all attackers.
            The Founding Fathers were men of vision, determination, faith, and courage. They knew what their definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen” was meant to be. They failed to DEFINE the term for posterity. I’m no fool, but I feel that if the Founding Fathers would cringe in disgust if they knew the nation they founded would be the home of the likes of you.
            Based on your singular attempts at argument and the intense smell eminating from your posts, it would be best if you would a least brush your teeth after the things you have “cleaned”. The entire board would appreciate this.

          • GQ4U

            1) “There is a definition?” –Peter–
            Yes at — http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            2) “In a SCOTUS decision ruling on the NBC status of a person born to a US citizen mother, a Cuban father, born in Canada?” –Peter–
            Now you’re just being an a$$.

            3) ” I’m sure this ruling incorporates all of the Immigration Law definitions?” –Peter–
            There are no immigration law definitions for a NBC. Congress can’t create a NBC — you must have Alzheimer’s disease. probably from cleaning tripe.

            4) “I am a supporter of the Constitution and will cast my vote for the
            Conservative candidate that embodies that document and will defend the
            Constitution” –Peter–
            Then you won’t be voting for Cruz, Jindal or Rubio.

            5) ” The entire board would appreciate this.” –Peter–
            No one else is reading this but you & I. I guess I’m done with you old man — bye.

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            “As to the question of citizenship I
            am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United
            States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized
            parents within the jurisdiction of the United States” –John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”–

            Bingham knew that a NBC was the child of citizen parents, aka second generation citizens and beyond.

          • Peter Smith

            You want to respond by points, fine:
            1) There are other definitions I have presented, you just don’t believe them.
            2) SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of Law. They have never ruled on such a case with this set of particulars.
            3) BS. There truly ARE definitions for NBC, you must have lost your glasses, or you’re just plain ignorant.
            4) I will be voting for Senator Cruz in the primary. Should he prevail there, I will be voting for him in the 2016 election. I believe he does meet the requirements of NBC.
            5) You’re done? I doubt it.
            6) You still won’t/don’t put any weight to the several other, legal defintions of NBC. Too bad.

            But, yes, I believe you’re done. You’ve worn out your one, ten page “proof”.

          • GQ4U

            Propaganda from a lemming means nothing.

            “No Person except a natural born
            Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption
            of this Constitution”

            This sentence clearly sets a distinction between Natural Born Citizen & Citizen of the United States (US citizen).

            This sentence was created long before the first U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Act was written.

            This sentence is included to protect the most powerful office in the U.S. from foreign influence.

            The original wording was Citizen of the United States and the Framers changed it to Natural Born Citizen.

            Apparently the Founders & Framers were a bunch of fools.

            Enjoy your freedom while you can because blind idiots like you will destroy it because they want what they want rather than what’s right for us all. The Constitution is more important than any candidate for POTUS.

            PS: Obama loves dupes like you.
            http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

          • Peter Smith

            You’re too stupid to continue this discussion. We’ve gone round and round and you still don’t get it, do you GQ4U.

            “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption
            of this Constitution”

            This sentence clearly sets a distinction between Natural Born Citizen & Citizen of the United States (US citizen).——–GQ4U

            Show me the Constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. I am well aware of the verbage changes to the Constitution and the reasons for those changes.

            I enjoy my freedoms EVERYDAY and I am a proud natural born citizen of this great land. I am a Christian Conservative and a firm believer in the Constitution. I doubt very seriously that Obama would even let me in the same room as himself. He would be afraid of what I am and what I believe. You speak of blind idiots, well then, OPEN YOUR FRIGGIN’ EYES.

      • Robert Wilson

        To; Podunk1; The onrushing tide of Communism through the Democrats has dumbed down, torn apart, NAFTA RUINED, SOCIETY DRAINED, CHRISTIAN DUMPED, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (And lets not forget, baby enfanticide). We now have same sex marriage protection in government jobs. All of these “happenings” are dumped on us by a radical, bunch of non house broken fools. Persons that do not take their oath of office seriously, should automatically be discharged from office, the same goes for the elected who do not honor our laws of the land. RW

        • podunk1

          What they’re doing to the USA is pathetic! I haven’t one elected or other official eve mention Amendment 14 Section 3 (Bans any oath bound official from holding any US office who engages in insurrection (organized progressive opposition against Constitutional authority) OR rebellion (against the Constitution which they owe allegiance to). Section 4 prevents any government assistance to such person and section 5 empowers congress to enforce it. Failure to enforce, support, or defend the Constitution betrays oath/duty… TREASON.

          • Robert Wilson

            THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO DO IS STRENGTHEN THE CHECKS AND BALANCES WRITTEN INTO OUR CONSTITUTION, THEN MAKE IT MANDATORY THAT THE OATH OF OFFICE HAS MERIT. THERE SHOULD BE A BALANCE SHEET THAT COVERS NOT ONLY PROMISES MADE BEFORE ELECTION, BUT AFTERWORD. SHOULD YOU AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, FAIL TO HONOR EITHER HIS PROMISES, OR OATH OF OFFICE, THEN YOU WOULD BE DISMISSED FROM OFFICE “AUTOMATICALLY”.

          • podunk1

            Being hacked – almost impossible to get a coherent comment posted due to blocked access (way below dialup speed) & Microsoft (Gates & common-core?) making it impossible to activate the Office programs I bought today for a new computer. There’s no life on their planet. One can’t wake a robot up when it’s not programmed to accept a new account if you had an old account that apparently died within a computer snuffed by progressive traitors.

  • David in MA

    Good for Cruz, to bad he is not Constitutionally eligible to be president.

    • David Stovall

      That is one opinion.. His mother gave him citizen blood. There are only 2 categories. 1. natural born 2. one who needs to be made a citizen because his birth has no citizen blood,, so did not make him a citizen. Cruz was a citizen by birth to a citizen mother,, and did not require any process. There is no definitive opinion and the Constitution is silent. Besides he was natural born instead of caesarian.

      • David in MA

        He is NOT Constitutionally eligible to be president, in fact, he was elected a senator from Texas while a Canadian citizen. He claims to have renounced his Canadian citizenship only AFTER he was exposed.
        Think and do as you wish, but, CRUZ IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA, and neither is Rubio, Jindal, Santorum and possibly Romney and ALL the Bush’s.
        I say all the Bush’s because Jeb filed a legal document stating he is Hispanic, which needs to be investigated via ancestry.
        have a nice day.

        • Halftrack2

          Come out of your dream world ….You can worship Omuslim after he is out….

          • raffaelecafagna

            Halftrack2 you are Wrong ; Inform Yourself : Mother and Father have to be U.S. Citizens ; Baby born in the U.S. or it`s Territories . Mother was American , Father Cuban ; Him born in Canada .
            How can Cruz be Citizen from Birth .???????????????????
            It takes 2 to make a baby ; 2 Americans that is ; don`t you know that .???????????????

      • Halftrack2

        David won’t be happy unless he can vote for his Muslim King again or replace him with Killery…

        • raffaelecafagna

          You need to inform yourself ; you and David Stovall are wrong : Mother and Father have to be U.S. Citizens ; Baby born in the U.S. or it`s Territories . Mother was American , Father Cuban ; Him born in Canada .
          How can Cruz be Citizen from Birth .???????????????????
          It takes 2 to make a baby ; 2 Americans that is ; don`t you know that .???????????????

          • megan

            Tell that to all the Obama voters

          • raffaelecafagna

            I don`t have anything against Cruz ; he`s the best we have in that district of corruption ; I do like his ” Standing Tall and Speaking Loud and Clear “.
            My point is : we respect the law or we don`t ; the same applies to zero = not eligible ………..but …………..( we all know the rest of the story ).

          • Mike_Travis

            Well said.

          • David Stovall

            I used to think the Constitution defined natural born , but it was pointed out that it doesn’t, so I reread it and it is not in the 4 corners. I was surprised. Here is one opinion ::: 1. If you are not natural born , then you must be naturalized,,, 2. If your born status does not require naturalization then you are natural born. 3. There is no 3. ;; Cruz’s born status did not require naturalization.

          • Poodleguy

            And you think you are more knowledgable than a man of Sen Cruz’s legal background & experience??? You are just another of the cadre of fools who believe your own BS……

          • raffaelecafagna

            what do you expect from a

            Poodleguy

          • Poodleguy

            What the hell is that supposed to mean, semen breath? FYI dummy, I happen to be a well known breeder of Std Poodles. I’m also a U.S. Army vet of 9 years service, a gun collector, hunter & expert long range shooter, honed by 25+ years of Antelope hunting in Wyoming. And just what are you, punk??

          • raffaelecafagna

            Not Really ; a Disabled Vet of 24 years in the U.S.Army ,” Hell on Wheels “. Not interested in Poodles but I prefer Lion Dogs.
            Thanks and have a Blessed Day .

      • raffaelecafagna

        Wrong ; Mother and Father have to be U.S. Citizens ; Baby born in the U.S. or it`s Territories . Mother was American , Father Cuban ; Him born in Canada .
        How can Cruz be Citizen from Birth .???????????????????
        It takes 2 to make a baby ; 2 Americans that is ; don`t you know that .???????????????

        • Nemo Sum

          Where did you get your law degree? At the Demonrat Party University?

          • raffaelecafagna

            Nemo Sum
            Go back to school and Read the Constitution .
            You are Uninformed , confused and brainwashed .
            Come back after you finish reading ; it`s only a Few pages .Thanks and Have a Blessed Day.

          • Nemo Sum

            You’re the one brainwashed by your Demonrat masters. I don’t need any more schooling than the four college degrees that I already have. The eligibility issue has been settled years ago. If you have the intelligence to research it for yourself, go do so on Lexis nexis. Then you will see how wrong you are and how you are trying to mislead others with your lies

          • raffaelecafagna

            those four college degrees , shove them up your tail ; I told you : Read the Constitution : Retarded Imbecile .
            Thanks and Bless you too .

          • Nemo Sum

            You’re too stupid to do a legal search. GFY U FSOB. You don’t have any place among intelligent people carrying on a discussion. Go back to Huff Post and the rest of the liberal CSing rags. They miss your special brand of idiocy!

          • raffaelecafagna

            you are a waste of time ; you have been Brainwashed and your brain is under the sole of your Left shoe . I do wonder about those Four college degrees . Go wash your mouth with soap and water . Read the Constitution . I have done all the Re-search ; you need to do yours .
            GFY U FSOB ; that is for you , : garbage mouth ” .
            Buzz off ; you are a waste of time . Have a Blessed Day .

          • Nemo Sum

            If you were in the Army for 24 years we have more in common than you think. I was on active duty from 1964 to 1993. Three years Army, twenty five years Air Force. Yes, I did get four degrees on active duty going to night classes. My apologies for losing my temper with you over the issue of Cruz’s eligibility but I thought that you were just another troll dissing a very good, Christian and Constititional candidate. I believe that the research shows Cruz is eligible for election and I support him. You have the right to disagree. But, I recommend sincerely that you never diss a person’s educational achievements, which generally take decades to accomplish. That is like dissing a person’s marriage, career or religion. God Bless America.

          • raffaelecafagna

            Please , No hard feelings . Thanks for serving the Best Nation on the Planet . May God and Jesus keep you and your family Safe .
            Please accept my apologies . Honestly I have nothing against Cruz , my Senator , a good man , a Christian , and standing tall for our Constitution .
            I was talking about his origin , that is it . Politics between friends is a dangerous subject ; I was having a discussion with another disabled vet , a very good friend ; it was about zero and it almost ended up into a nightmare . I will take back everything I said about your education ; please , please forgive me . Nemo Sum , my friend ; I do not have the education you have ; all I have is a B.S. in Construction and foreign languages . God Bless America . I wish you a safe and Blessed day .
            Thanks.

          • Nemo Sum

            I am also a DAV. 40% service-connected. I live in NV where we have the questionable distinction of having the worst VA medical system in any of the States or Territories. I avoid them as much as possible, using Medicare and Tricare. But you know how Obrainless has taken funds from them. He doesn’t make things easy for veterans/retirees. God Bless America and save us from any more like BHO!

      • Poodleguy

        He was a dual citizen @ birth but he renounced his Canadian citizenship around a year ago because no POTUS may have dual citizenship. Do you know of his background in law? The fact the very liberal Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz stated Sen Cruz was the most brilliant student he ever had. He was a law clerk for a SCOTUS Justice & was the solicitor general for the state of Texas. It should be very clear, even to the intellectually challenged that he surely knows the law & that he is eligible..

        • Mike_Travis

          I recall that Ovomit was a “constitutional scholar” too. We can see by his actions how much he must have learned in school, for he has gutted the Constitution from day 1.

          • Poodleguy

            The attempt to compare the disbarred ovomit’s legal background to that of Sen Ted Cruz’s is laughable!

    • Halftrack2

      Another Progresive/socialists without facts or truth David…

      • Mike_Travis

        Wrong. David in MA is 100% correct. The Constitution does not define words, nor does it need to do so. It uses words according to the usage at the time it was written. Back then, Natural Born Citizen was well understood to be different from natural born or naturalized in that to be a NBC, one had to be born of two parents who were both US citizens at the time of birth.

        • raffaelecafagna

          Very well Explained .
          Thanks.

    • oldvinnie

      Miss that class?

  • David Stovall

    Even this would not get the vote of faux Republicans who say every candidate is not conservative enough. Saying I won’t vote for him, I will stay home and let Obama win, or Hillary. I like Cruz a lot.

    • Halftrack2

      Find you a Socialists/Muslim sight to comment on…David…

      • David Stovall

        Cruz is way , way not Socialist/Muslim. “I like Cruz a lot.”

?>

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Google Analytics Alternative