Obviously, you didn't read the article Plain Ol'. I too contend that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen, and I don't get how anyone can really argue otherwise, if they are familiar with the law(s) governing "Natural Born", "Citizens"; and the parents of "Natural Born Citizens". Like the author, I too think that this issue needs to be determined by the Supreme Court, and soon. Although I don't think it will matter in 2016.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:52 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > wrote: > Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president is far from settled. > --- > hogwash ... his mother was an American ... case closed. > > > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:34:17 AM UTC-6, MJ wrote: >> >> >> 18 January, 2016 >> >> *John Quincy Adams Settles Cruz’s Eligibility Once And For All: Pt. 1 on >> Ted Cruz’s Candidacy *Doug Johnson >> >> >> >> *The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today’s news with good ol’ >> fashioned horse sense **Here’s the Nonsense:* The eligibility issue is >> settled and clear. This is just a distraction. >> >> *Here’s the Horse Sense:* Only an uninformed or foolish person would >> think the eligibility issue is settled. It’s not settled, but now it may be >> able to be put to rest once and for all. >> >> Contrary to what many people are saying, Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be >> president is far from settled. In fact, those who say it is are either >> being deceptive and trying to get the focus off the issue because they >> support him and want him as the nominee, or they’re just plain stupid. >> Nowhere in our founding documents is the term “natural born” defined and >> the Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of the term. But the >> issue should be able to finally be put to rest thanks for John Quincy >> Adams, our 6th president. >> >> Attorneys of all stripes are claiming they know what the founders meant >> by the term “natural born.” And the fact is that they don’t know. They can >> make a guess based on whatever case law they can find. Some even twist >> things and make claims that can’t be supported, such as Cruz’s claims about >> who is natural born when, as stated above, there never has been a >> definition given in the Constitution nor one ruled on by the Supreme Court. >> >> But making a questionable claim is typical for attorneys to make to imply >> something they cannot prove but hope their implication will sway the court. >> >> Some will go to the 1875 *Minor v. Happersett* >> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162> Supreme Court >> ruling and say it shows us what the founders meant. >> >> Others will use the Naturalization Act of 1790 and show that the term >> “citizens” is used when referring to parents of natural born children. It >> is claimed that using the plural (“citizens”) proves that both parents must >> be citizens at the child’s birth to be considered natural born. >> >> Some will remind us that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was changed in >> 1795 to remove the term “natural born” and try to say that proves what is >> in the 1790 law said doesn’t matter. >> >> Authors like Ann Coulter >> <http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/why-ted-cruz-is-ineligible/> have written >> articles about what she says proves her position on the meaning of natural >> born. (And I might add that Coulter’s piece is interesting because she >> raises far more legal points than most people who write about this issue >> do.) >> >> Articles have appeared everywhere from the LA Times >> <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-president-20160110-story.html> >> to the Washington Post >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html?tid=sm_tw> >> giving legal opinions about the issue. >> >> However, none of this is law. None of this determines the issue once and >> for all. We will either need a Supreme Court ruling or an amendment to the >> Constitution to finally settle this issue. >> >> Any effort to try to debate the issue into a definition we desire instead >> of trying to find out what the founders meant when they used the term >> “natural born” is an effort to subvert the Constitution. >> >> But I would like to suggest that the issue may be determined quite >> simply. Thanks not to attorneys, but to historians, we may be able to >> settle the meaning the founders intended. Then we simply need to put it >> into an amendment to the Constitution so it is defined once and for all. >> >> So, to figure this out we first have to admit that the founders knew the >> answer to this question. Wouldn’t it make sense that our founders knew what >> they meant by the terms they used? Of course they knew what they meant when >> they used the term “natural born” as a requirement for the presidency. >> >> And given the uniqueness of what America was and what it represented for >> all mankind throughout the world, wouldn’t it make sense that their own >> children would be raised fully understanding what these things meant so >> that they could continue the legacy of our nation’s founding fathers? >> >> So, given that, if the children of America’s founders faced a situation >> where this would have been a question they certainly would have known what >> the Constitution meant when it said a president must be “natural born.” >> >> In a very interesting article >> <http://www.newsmax.com/DougWead/John-Adams-Canada-George-Washington-Germany/2016/01/14/id/709421> >> for Newsmax, Doug Wead tells the story of John Quincy Adams’ son, George >> Washington Adams. And from it we learn what the Adams’ understanding was of >> being natural born. >> >> We all remember John Adams, our second president and one of the great >> American founding fathers. His son, John Quincy Adams, also served in the >> presidency as our 6th president. Both men served America well and are >> looked upon as great leaders of our nation. >> >> What is not known by most people is that John Quincy Adams’ son, George >> Washington Adams, was not eligible to run for the presidency, like his >> father and grandfather, because he was not considered to be natural born. >> Both his father, John Quincy Adams, and his mother, Louisa Catherine Adams, >> were American citizens. His father and grandfather had both been >> presidents. But because his mother gave birth to him outside of the >> country, he was NOT considered to be a natural born citizen. >> >> If he was not natural born, then there’s no way Cruz could be considered >> natural born. >> >> Unless it is specifically defined, case law and legislation can show us >> some things from which we must draw conclusions that we think are accurate >> interpretations. But example speaks louder than case law or legislation. >> That’s because example shows us how they applied it in daily life and >> there’s no greater argument than the example lived out in people’s lives. >> >> Before you close your mind and try to argue about this, think about what >> history is showing us here. John Adams was our 2nd president and a founding >> father of our nation. Certainly his son, John Quincy Adams, our 6th >> president, would have been raised to know what they meant by natural born >> and whether his son, George Washington Adams, would have been considered >> natural born. >> >> More than any argument from legal cases, this appears to me to be the >> best example we could find to determine what the founders meant by “natural >> born citizen.” >> >> There is no argument I can imagine to override the Adams’ example in >> their own lives that would allow Ted Cruz to be eligible when George >> Washington Adams was not. >> >> In light of this, if he truly loves America and respects the >> Constitution, Cruz should disqualify himself and drop out of the race. >> >> And even if we assume Cruz doesn’t know about George Washington Adams, >> his unwillingness to seek the true definition of the term by having the >> court issue a declaratory judgment and instead, attack those who’ve raised >> the question, should cause concern about what he has to hide. Like other >> politicians we’ve seen countless times before, he claims to be open and >> have integrity, but his actions should set off warning signs to voters. >> >> If Ted truly understood leadership and integrity he’d have been proactive >> on this issue. When it came up he would have made a public statement saying >> something like: “While I believe I am a natural born citizen and therefore >> eligible to be president, to put everyone’s mind at ease I am going to seek >> a declaratory judgment from the court to settle this once and for all and >> put people’s minds at ease. I love America and the Constitution and I am >> willing to abide by the decision of the court, even if it ultimately means >> I would have to drop out of the race.” >> >> That’s what a leader and person of integrity does. They are proactive and >> do what’s right regardless of the cost to themselves. >> >> If he believes he’s right, he should have nothing to fear. If he >> prevailed with the court it would preclude anyone from bringing the issue >> up any longer. But by not getting that from the court, it simply allows his >> attackers to continue to raise the issue and even litigate it. And if he’s >> the nominee, it takes credibility away from him during the general >> election, which is the worst time it could happen. >> >> But when Cruz doesn’t do that, he’s raising questions about his integrity >> no matter how this comes out. To double down and try to belittle a >> competitor (in this case Trump) with Alinsky-like responses designed to put >> doubt on the questioner, not answer the question, simply reduces his >> credibility. >> >> If he has nothing to hide and is so sure, why wouldn’t he be willing to >> seek a court judgment? That would end the discussion once and for all. It >> would eliminate it being dragged through battles in the legal system. >> >> In fact, just this past week the suits started with one challenging his >> eligibility being filed at the end of the week. (It’s also interesting to >> note that a suit has also been brought against Rubio regarding his >> eligibility, too.) And I suspect there will be more suits before this is >> over. >> >> If nothing else, the decision to handle this the way Cruz has done shows >> an immature and foolish decision on his part. He has nothing to lose by >> seeking a declaratory judgment. To ignore it only leads to more problems. >> >> But then, Ted Cruz has shown immaturity and foolishness in decision >> making before. And some of the other reasons we should be concerned about >> his candidacy will be dealt with in part 2 which has been published right >> after this post. >> >> Part2: >> http://www.horsesenseblog.com/2016/01/why-i-no-longer-believe-ted-cruz-can.html >> >> http://www.horsesenseblog.com/2016/01/john-quincy-adams-settles-cruzs.html >> > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
