TexasCHLforum.com

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:RE: Ted Cruz's citizenship situation.

His mother was an American citizen. His father emigrated from Cuba to Austin, TX in 1957 to go to UT.

He was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada while his parents were working in the oil industry.

They returned to the US when Ted was 4. He graduated from high school in Katy, TX (Houston area).

His father became a US citizen in 2005 and is a pastor in North Dallas.

Is he eligible? I don't know. Since he had an American mother, doesn't that make him an American
citizen automatically, although born in Maple Syrup Land? Does anyone know?

SIA

Yes, he's eligible. As long as at least one parent is an American citizen at the time of birth, the citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the US before the birth of the child, and at least 2 of the 5 years were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday. Cruz qualifies. Now, should he run in 2016 is a totally different question.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... us/275469/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In short, the Constitution says that the president must be a natural-born citizen. "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born 'in' the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements," the CRS's Jack Maskell wrote. So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized; therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen. You can read the CRS memo at bottom; here's a much longer and more detailed 2011 version.

Quoted link opens PDF file.

powerboatr wrote:he was born in canada and his folks were not active duty military or working in a military or American zone, much like the canal zone of panama or in a diplomatic position.

even if his folks were working in canada for an oil company and they retained their citizenship as legal workers in Canada, he was still born there so in my little brain he is a Canadian.
did he ever become a citizen of the usa? and at what age or was it just given as his parents where us citizens at the time

just asking
i sure it would come up...but the precedent would be prove that barry is a natural born us citizen?

Military status is not a requirement. Because the COTUS is silent on what makes a "natural born citizen", Congress gets to set the rules.

Let us look at this in the light of what we know of Sen. Cruz compared to the vast majority of the rest of the senators.

In his short tenure Ted has managed to accomplish as much if not more than most of the sitting scum in the senate right now. Just his presence and his wonderfeul knack of stirring the pot has instilled more pride and respect in me for a politician than I could have imagined.

So what if he has no landmark legislation named after him.

So what if he does not have the tenure or experience of any current possible candidate for POTUS.

So what if he is not accepted by the mordor on the potomac insiders.

So what?!?!?!?!?

Look how far the last GOP ticket went. I am not now impressed and neither was I the night R&R were pushed on us as the candidates to beat barry.

The rest of the scum senators are not worth a bucket of warm spit.

The current two party system don't work.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Unless something drastic is done next election to stir things up, I am not even going to vote.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Let us look at this in the light of what we know of Sen. Cruz compared to the vast majority of the rest of the senators.

In his short tenure Ted has managed to accomplish as much if not more than most of the sitting scum in the senate right now. Just his presence and his wonderfeul knack of stirring the pot has instilled more pride and respect in me for a politician than I could have imagined.

So what if he has no landmark legislation named after him.

So what if he does not have the tenure or experience of any current possible candidate for POTUS.

So what if he is not accepted by the mordor on the potomac insiders.

So what?!?!?!?!?

Look how far the last GOP ticket went. I am not now impressed and neither was I the night R&R were pushed on us as the candidates to beat barry.

The rest of the scum senators are not worth a bucket of warm spit.

The current two party system don't work.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Anygunanywhere

Cruz has done more to try save our Republic in his limited time in national office than many (if not most) lifelong Republican congress critters. It's hardly his fault that he's fighting an uphill battle against both parties. The fact is that right now, about all he can do is stand as a roadblock. Democrats are actively destroying this nation, and Republicans are passively (and in some cases actively) helping them. He's been a rock and, should he run, he's got my vote.

More on the race for 2016...Notice the names...Also the rhetoric...It has already started...

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-next-la ... 00728.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously I found this after my last post...

stevie_d_64 wrote:More on the race for 2016...Notice the names...Also the rhetoric...It has already started...

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-next-la ... 00728.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously I found this after my last post...

Hmmmmm. Paul/Cruz or Cruz/Paul. I could get behind that ticket.

ETA: Is the death of the Republican Party really such a bad thing if it is replaced by a party that truly believes in and adheres to Constitutional principles? I'm not going to shed any tears over the loss of the GOP as it exists today. They're almost as bad as the Democrats.

RottenApple wrote: Cruz has done more to try save our Republic in his limited time in national office than many (if not most) lifelong Republican congress critters. It's hardly his fault that he's fighting an uphill battle against both parties. The fact is that right now, about all he can do is stand as a roadblock. Democrats are actively destroying this nation, and Republicans are passively (and in some cases actively) helping them. He's been a rock and, should he run, he's got my vote.

What exactly ha he done???

I do agree with you that he is a fantastic conservative and has voted as I would on some issues...I too would support a run for the office...

You do make a great point in that he IS a roadblock (I like that, we need more folks like him who are unconcerned about the political fallout from being an obstructionist)!!! That to me is the most significant thing he is doing...Much to the chagrin of the republican party leadership and the democrats in general...

RottenApple wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:More on the race for 2016...Notice the names...Also the rhetoric...It has already started...

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-next-la ... 00728.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously I found this after my last post...

Hmmmmm. Paul/Cruz or Cruz/Paul. I could get behind that ticket.

ETA: Is the death of the Republican Party really such a bad thing if it is replaced by a party that truly believes in and adheres to Constitutional principles? I'm not going to shed any tears over the loss of the GOP as it exists today. They're almost as bad as the Democrats.

Sure...but I still have my reservations about Rand Pauls' libertarian political pedegree...There are some issues that I, as a conservative have some dissagreements about that political philosophy...

And I am unapologetic about those dissagreements...Thats why, on political positions, I find myself not getting too excited about his potential future campaign to lead this country...

My crystal ball says he won't win Texas either in a primary...I think he might be close, but it will not win him full delegates/electoral votes...

stevie_d_64 wrote:What exactly ha he done???

I do agree with you that he is a fantastic conservative and has voted as I would on some issues...I too would support a run for the office...

You do make a great point in that he IS a roadblock (I like that, we need more folks like him who are unconcerned about the political fallout from being an obstructionist)!!! That to me is the most significant thing he is doing...Much to the chagrin of the republican party leadership and the democrats in general...

Answered your own question.

The "natural born citizen" issue has been thoroughly settled to my satisfaction by having this British/Kenyan/Indonesian/ non-U.S. citizen being allowed by the Congress, and the courts to proceed with his Marxist insurgency charade for more than 4 years.

Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio are eligible.

Rand Paul will get a lot of support from cross-over voters. If you want to ever get rid of the IRS, and the U.N., Rand Paul is your guy.

I'd consider Cruz after he's had two senate terms under his belt with consistant results. Anything before that is gambling, IMHO.

v-rog wrote:I'd consider Cruz after he's had two senate terms under his belt with consistant results. Anything before that is gambling, IMHO.

This country will crash and burn if we wait 12 years to fix it.
I'l wait until 2016 before I decide whether to roll the dice, but absent a better candidate, I'm not opposed to taking a chance on Ted.

v-rog wrote:I'd consider Cruz after he's had two senate terms under his belt with consistant results. Anything before that is gambling, IMHO.

Is it really going to be any worse than the gamble we were forced to take with the current occupant of the White House?

Nobody looks Presidential until the echoes of the 21 gun salute and Hail to The Chief have died down, and the Chief Justice has said, "Congratulations, Mr. President.", and sometimes not even then.

We look to the President to cure all our ills but our legal structure isn't set up that way. The President has few powers assigned by the Constitution. Commander in Chief, nominate other officers, make a report on the State of the Union, almost all subject to Congressional oversight, review, authorization. He can't even fill up his big black car at Costco unless Congress allocates the money.

Even exercising his express powers is fraught with difficulties. I remember reading an incident when Richard Nixon dictated a memo to knock down some old WWII "temporary buildings at the Washington Navy Yard. (I think I stayed in one of them when the Longhorn Band was there for the Inaugural Parade in 1965!) The memo, from the Commander in Chief, got passed down to the Navy, Admirals and Captains scrambled all over the place, meetings, conferences, the result of which was that the buildings couldn't be razed until the planned interchange of some Interstate freeway in Virginia was completed some years away, and on and on. Nixon ORDERED the buildings torn down, nothing happened. It would not surprise me in the least if those buildings were still there.

It's a long way up the greasy pole, and many, many opportunities to slip and find yourself out of the running.

Judgment comes from experience. Harry Truman claimed that "[a]ll the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway." You must be able to convince people to do things your way.