Does anyone have a cigarette? I know this counts as TMI, but I’m still experiencing an almost post-coital glow over the news that Tea Party bad boy Ted Cruz has a real birth certificate problem. His would be markedly different than Pres. Obama’s birth certificate problem, which was wholly fictional and whipped up by paranoid birthers.
One more time: Obama = a bona fide American citizen. Cruz = a dual citizen who was forced to renounce his Canadian citizenship. I can use hand puppets or large illustrations of dancing farm animals if that helps the Tea Party crowd understand the facts a little better.
Cruz conducted a town hall meeting in Dallas last night for his right-wing fan base. The meeting was intended to raise support for defunding Obamacare, a possibility that’s almost as imaginary as Obama’s “resident alien” status. None of the faithful at that event harassed Cruz about his complicated citizenship situation. Their passion for all things Constitutional was not triggered by the revelation that Cruz has been 50% Canuck this whole time.
Why the dissimilar reactions to Cruz and Obama? Well, duh! Canada isn’t as scary as Kenya (Obama’s alleged birthplace) because it doesn’t have nearly as big a population of men who look like Obama –– guys with discernably African features and Islamic sounding names. If the Tea Party is tired of the racism accusations, they need to use the authentic Cruz birther flap as a teachable moment and shut the fuck up about Obama being a foreigner.
News flash. . .Obama’s father was a Kenyan national and a British subject. Obama was born with dual citizenship (US & Kenyan) AND British subjectivity which passes automatically to the child at birth.
Paul, the news flash is wrong. The so-called dual citizenship expired 30 years ago when Obama failed to travel to Kenya and claim it.
Kenya granted conditional dual citizenship to foreign born children of its citizens to encourage them to return.
This was an issue the birthers raised in 2008. It has long been discredited. Not even birthers still maintain that Obama has dual citizenship today.
Canada requires a natural born citizen to positively revoke citizenship.
As much as I admire Sen. Cruz for his stance against ObamaCare; I, and much of his Tea Party base, admire and respect the US Const. even more.
Sen. Ted Cruz is absolutely correct when he states he is a “US Citizen at birth”. But Sen. Ted Cruz is a US Citizen at birth by positive law (Title 8 USC §1401 (g)). Unfortunately, the US Const. calls for our presidents to be “natural” born Citizens, by natural law, not by positive statutory law. If the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. had wanted simply “US citizens by birth” as the requirement, they could have easily said:”US citizens at birth”, but they didn’t; they said: ‘”natural” born Citizens. In the US Const. words mean something, each and every one.
The fact that a definition of a “natural born Citizen” is missing from the US Const. wasn’t an oversight, or a simple laps in judgement, as our courts have assumed. The founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const., even the colonial (man) in the street, knew perfectly well what a “natural born subject” was before the American revolution.
After the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a Citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. Therefore, to find the proper definition of a “natural born citizen”, we must look at this enigmatic phrase, not through the eyes of a subject, but through the eyes of a sovereign, using natural law.
As sovereigns, their offspring would inherit their sovereignty from their fathers (partus sequitur patrem). As sovereigns, their offspring would also be natural born subjects wherever their birth occurred, as natural law dictates. As de Vattel points out in this work: ‘Law of Nations’, the minimum requirement to meet natural law criteria is that the child born inherits the citizenship of its father. Once this requirement is met, other restrictions can also be applied, such as ‘place of birth’ and the allegiance of the mother, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the child’s natural right to inherit its father’s citizenship.
Under this definition, neither Barack Obama, nor Sen Cruz, are Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born US Citizens. Barack Obama was born a natural born subject of the English Realm, and Sen Cruz was born a natural born citizen of Cuba.
ex animo
davidfarrar
You guys can go on and on about your British realm topic, but the big news is that Cruz is renouncing his Canadian citizenship, and at the same time he will renounce round bacon and curling. And he will suggest the McKenzie Brothers might be a terrorists because Bob once said about his brother, Doug: “He once got our dead battery goin’ by mixin’ bird feces and spit, cause there’s like acids in it, eh?” I’m glad to see Cruz is serious about all this Canadian shit. ‘Cause as a Tea Partier, I think anyone who comes from the land of Moosehead and Molson has to be un-American. Christ, they even have the evil socialized medicine up there, where people without money who get sick get to see a doctor and possibly live. How horrible is that. Take off, Ted, eh?
Why would “birthers” assail Sen. Cruz; we support his efforts? We are just saying if he has plans for the presidency or vice-presidency, we would have a problem. But, I, for one, haven’t heard him say he is standing for either of those two positions.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I just think that a person is who they are based upon the citizenship of their birth. Cruz is a Canadian, so he must one of those folks who likes hockey and is in favor of all those Asians living in Vancouver and Toronto. And as a Tea Partier, I don’t like anyone different from me, and that now includes Cruz because of where he was born. Hell, that guy down the street doesn’t watch Judge Judy in the afternoon like the rest of us, so he must be some sort of communiss (he also mentions he watches some Ay-rab named Fareed Zakaria on CNN, another sign of un-americanism).
Pebbles, you are an unmitigated moron. You seem to have difficulties putting together a coherent sentence. You are obviously a left wing hate monger. Stop the pretense that you are a tea party supporter.
As a Tea Partier, you’ll have to explain to me what “unmitigated” means, as that is probably one of those words liberals use when discussing health care reform, as in “unmitigated coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.” I think that “unmitigated” in that sense means free, as in free health care coverage for all those lazy people who don’t think like us and don’t have money because they are lazy and immoral and not GOD-FEARING PATRIOTS. They decided to live that way, so I have no real reason to care if they get medical care for their diseases (most probably self-inflicted), or live or die for that matter. The “unmitigated” class is part of the scourge of this great country, and I dislike all people who are included in that class of people, because they probably use drugs and don’t support our troops and read books and think George W. Bush was/is mentally delicate.