Because the Republican electorate is not crazy enough? Uhhh....you sure about that?

even though the GOP steals 5% of the presidential vote in every election, they still cant win with Cruz

Bring it...

like you said, bring it. i think it would take something like a meteor strike that wipes out 3/4 of the American population for there to be a republican taking the oath on 1/20/17

above Jeb and only behind Trump and Rubio.

Would have been Jeb® if only he hadn't have revealed himself to be the dumber and less charismatic brother.

unless he really screws up. Kasich has an outside shot if he can take off. But I also think Cruz could do it. He is a very good speaker, he appeals to his base brilliantly, and he has enough billionaire support that he won't get buried money wise.

If Cruz wins their nomination, and then is sued, it will cause a constitutional crisis. We do not need that.

There isn't anything in there about party nominations. It's not our fault if the Rs nominate someone who is ineligible.

It proves the Republicans are so intent on putting America under Jesus-sharia that they're willing to pick a guy who can't legally be president to do it, it forces them to hold a second convention (and since they won't be able to rent a convention center on the spur of the moment, they'll have to do it from hotel ballrooms via satellite linkup), it forces them to use money they'd rather spend lying about the Democratic candidate on this second convention...LOTS of advantages to suing the GOP over nominating a Canadian to be president, few if any disadvantages.

To get Grayson airtime in his Senate bid. If you are born of a U.S. citizen you are a natural born citizen. That's the law. Goldwater was not born in the U.S. (AZ was a territory at the time). McCain was not born in the U.S. Too bad DUers have now signed up to be birthers.

It will be someone who 'appears' to be normal. Like Kasich or Rubio. The loonie toons will weed themselves out by then.

And for the same reason.

You can't get much more full of it than that.

Not born in another country to an American mother.

If one can stoop to calling it that, of course.

Eat this...and Die....Teddy!!!!

The Birther Movement Lives.

The Teapublicans would not let go of it, now it will bite them in the butt.

The question is, "what is the definition of a natural-born citizen?"

I see no reason why this should not be decided in court.

She was not an American citizen yet.

This article from politifact.com suggests that she was an American citizen:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/

Obama did, why can't Cruz?

As soon as he produces his FS-240 or DS-1350 it all goes away.

a couple of years to produce it.

And he (Cruz) may not even be eligible to serve in the Senate.

I don't like shit, but this has been out there for awhile and has legs...if anyone cares.

Cruz's mother was a U.S. citizen at the time. U.S. law-- 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth defines who is a natural born citizen. Cruz meets the qualifications.

She was born in Delaware.

What difference does that make?

let's not jump on the crazytrain.

and on time, as Cruz had a Canadian Birth Certificate.

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/A4en.pdf
Cruz might be saying:
I was born overseas. I believe I was a U.S. citizen at birth
because one or both my parents were U.S. citizens when I
was born. But my birth and citizenship were not registered
with the U.S. Embassy when I was born. Can I apply to
have my citizenship recognized?
Whether or not someone born outside the United States to a U.S.
citizen parent is a U.S. citizen depends on the law in effect when
the person was born. These laws have changed over the years, but
usually require a combination of the parent being a U.S. citizen when
the child was born, and the parent having lived in the United States
or its possessions for a specific period of time. Derivative citizenship
can be quite complex and may require careful legal analysis.

I suspect though this is one of Grayson's grandstands to fund-raise. Cruz is a long shot just like Bush at this point. If neither of them place (1st, 2nd, 3rd) in a primary by March 1st they are both burnt toast.

Fundraising and stopping Cruz with lots of blue links to donate.

Do It If Necessary.

and his naming of Cheney, brought up the issue of what was the domicile of Cheney. Because the President & Vice President are not to be residents of the same state. Both were from Texas.

The issue went to Federal Court where Cheney claimed he was a resident of Wyoming (didn't matter that he didn't conduct business from there & only visited for vacations), the court ruled that he was domiciled in Wyoming.

In regard to Cruz, he only renounced his Canadian citizenship when he was elected Senator. Is he a natural born citizen? I don't think, if way into his adulthood he claimed allegiance to Canada, no way is he a natural born citizen.

the only problem was the constitution (12th amendment) barred, in this case, texas electors from voting for both a president and a vice-president from their own state. had the courts agreed that cheney was a texas resident, then shrub would still have won the presidency, and the texas electors would have abstained to vote for a vice-president.

this would have thrown the vice-presidential election into the senate, as no candidate would have had a majority of electors. in theory, they could have voted lieberman in, but i doubt that the democrats in the senate would have decided it was in the country's interest to have a democratic vice-president under a republican president. my strong hunch is that they would have voted to let cheney be vice-president anyway. the 12th amendment, after all, was designed in part to prevent such results.

Does Canada have Selective Service Registration, because if it does I am curious to find out if he had to register for two drafts?

Last edited Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:23 AM - Edit history (1)

I had a professor in Collage who had also been a US Army Colonel. He came from money, the top 10% of Americans not the top 1% but money. In 1939 he and a friend made a trip to Europe, when they arrived in Germany, the Germans found out his friend's parents had been born in Germany and that made him a German Citizen even though he had been born in the USA. The friend ended up serving six years in the German Army and when he was able to return to the US, his local draft board had him arrested for NOT registering for the US Draft (as a US male US Citizen he had to registered, the fact he was serving in the German Army did not relieve him of that duty. The Court ruled he has good cause NOT to register during WWII but told him he had to register once he returned to the US.

His US Citizenship did NOT exclude him from the German Draft of all German Citizens. Under German Law he was still a German Citizen, even though he was also a native born US Citizen. As a US Citizen, the fact he was in the German Army did not relieve him of his duty as a US Citizen to register for the draft.

Each country define their Citizens differently. Germany, during WWII, defined its Citizens not only by birth within Germany but by German descent (The exact rule I do not know, but in the 1990s Germans, who had been living in Russia since Peter the Great c1700, were permitted to migrant to Germany on the grounds they were German Citizens. I do NOT know if that is still the law in Germany but it appears Germany has embrace birth within Germany as native born Citizenship). Please note, during the 1930s and WWII, people who had been born in Germany but were of Jewish descent were ruled NOT to be German Citizens even through they families had been in Germany for Centuries. This is NOT longer the rule in Germany but I point it out as an example of Countries defining Citizenship on Nationality NOT birth within their borders.

Mexico, is another country that define anyone of Mexican Descent to be a Mexican Citizen, In 1998 Mexico clarified the law to include children born overseas to Mexican Citizens but NOT to those Parent's Grandchildren if such Grandchildren were born overseas and the parents of those Grandchildren NEVER returned to Mexico. Thus in many ways Mexican extraction includes Mexican Citizenship (and German extraction includes German Citizenship).

Many countries use Nationality as grounds for Citizenship as opposed to being born in the country, some countries use both. Who uses what method varies from country to country and thus it is possible to be a Citizen of more than one country at a time. Many countries have passed laws saying you can only be a citizen of their country, but such laws only apply while you are in that country, once in another country, the laws of that country apply.

It is possible for Cruz to be a Citizen of three Nations, the US, for his Father was a Naturalized US Citizen, Canada, for he was born in Canada, and Cuba for he is of Cuban descent. This happens more often then we like to think. Peru elected a native born President in the 1990s of Japanese Extraction. Once he had served his term, he ran off to Japan to escape some criminal charges. Being of Japanese extraction, he was ruled to be a Citizen of Japan even through he had never step foot in Japan prior to running off to Japan to escape the Criminal Charges. Thus he had dual Citizenship, Peruvian and Japanese.

This seems to be the dominate rule world wide, you are a Citizen of the Country your parents lived in (Provided they were the dominant Nationality in that region) AND you are also a Citizen of the country you were born in. This is true even if you do NOT know you are a Citizen of more then one nation. Please note, many nations use Paternal rules, other use Maternal rules. Some nations requires BOTH parents to be of their Nationality, each county have their own rules, you will have to look them up yourself if you want to see what countries you MAY be a Citizen of).

In recent decades the move has been away from Nationality to birth within the Nation-State world wide.

Latvia and Estonia show the other side of the rules of Citizenship. In both nations unless you can show you are of Latvian nationality in Latvia (Or Estonian in Estonia), you have to show your parents lived in Latvia (or Estonia) before 1939. If you do NOT meet those two rules, you are viewed as a 'Stateless' Person within those two nations. The fact your great grandparents, grandparents, parents and yourself were born in Latvia or Estonia is unimportant. Mere birth in those two nations does NOT give you citizenship. This has been the main cause of stress between Estonia and Latvia when it comes to their relationship with Russia, for up to a 1/3 of each nation consist of people of Russian (or other non Latvian or Estonian) descent AND most can trace their families to people who moved to Latvia and Estonia since 1939. These people are permitted to stay in Estonia and Latvia, but are NOT permitted to vote and have other restrictions imposed on them as being 'Legal" but NOT immigrants nor citizens.

Side Note; These non-citizens are given 'Non-Citizen' passport when they need to go abroad. These mostly Russian Speakers tend to live in the Urban Areas, through you do see many in the border areas with Russia. Most of Rural Latvia and Estonia is Latvian or Estonian except right at the border. This is the result of a deliberate policy of the old Soviet Union. The leaders of both countries say they impose such restrictions on citizenship to undo the 'harm' done by the Soviet Union between 1939 and 1989, when immigration of Russians were encouraged in both Countries, where they tended to be in position of authority in both countries. Thus both countries could not kick them out in the early 1990s, for their countries would cease to function, but they did not want to give them citizenship either, thus the present non-citizenship of such people in both countries.

Please note the third Baltic Nation, Lithuania, while it does have the same rules as Estonia and Latvia (i.e. birth within its border does NOT create Citizenship) it has NOT cause the problems the same law in Estonia and Latvia have caused. The reason for this there are very few Russians who moved into Lithuania between 1939 and 1989, thus no need to deny any Russians in Lithuania citizenship. The main reason for this is in all three Baltic Nations, the Soviet Union encouraged Russians to go to the major port cities of each country. Tallinn is the major Port of Estonia and even today 36% of its population are of Russian Nationality and only 54% of the people of Tallinn are of Estonia nationaility:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallinn#Ethnic_groups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Estonia

Only 62% of residents of Latvia are Latvians, 29% are Russian;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia#Ethnic_groups

Latvia's Capital, Riga, has only 49% of its population being Latvians, 37% of the population is Russian. Riga had been the main base of the Imperial Russian Fleet from its conquest from Sweden in 1710 till the Russian Revolution in 1917.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riga#Historic_population_figures

12% of the population of Latvia are "Stateless' i.e. they are citizens of no nation. These are mostly Ethnic Russians whose ancestor moved to Latvia post 1939. They have been 'Stateless' since 1991:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizens_(Latvia)

Estonia is during a little better, only 7% of its population are 'Stateless' i.e. not a Citizen of any nation, and like Latvia these are ethnic Russians who have lived in Estonia for decades;

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/et-people-russians.htm



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/et-people-russians.htm

I bring this up for Russians who can show residents prior to 1939 are citizens of Estonia and Latvia. Russians have lived in both countries since 1710 when it taken by Russia from Sweden.

Lithuania did not have a major port, it either used Riga or what is today Kaliningrad. Thus no major port in Lithuania, and no massive encouragement of Russian immigration into Lithuania post WWII. Thus Lithuania is 84% Lithuanian with both 6% minorities of both Russians and Poles (and most of this is in rural areas bordering Russia and Poland). Thus Lithuania, while as fearful of the Russians as Latvia and Estonia, do not have any where near the number of native born Russians within their own borders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania#Ethnic_groups

Since the numbers of Russians are so small in Lithuania, giving them Citizenship has never been a political problem in Lithuania. The old Soviet Union valued Riga in Latvia, Tallinn in Estonia, at the same level as Kaliningrad. Thus all three cities saw massive Russian Immigration is the post WWII era. This Soviet policy of sending Russians to live in these three cities, reduced the percentage of Natives in Latvia and Estonia but NOT Lithuania for Kaliningrad was NOT in Lithuania. Thus Lithuania has less then 4000 'stateless People' as oppose to the 400,000 'stateless people' in Estonia and Latvia.

This difference in what was considered part of Latvia (including Riga), Estonia (including Tallinn) and Lithuania (NOT including Kaliningrad) lead to the small number of Russians in Post Soviet Lithuania. Thus Lithuania did not have to disenfranchise it Russians speakers to make sure ethnic Lithuanians would stay in control of Lithuania.

The much higher Russian population in Riga and Tallinn and other urban areas of Latvia and Estonia was the reason such population were denied the right to vote (and that right to vote is still denied to them). I bring this up to show an example of someone NOT having the right to vote in the country of his or her birth do to the fact they are NOT considered 'Citizens' of that Nation-State. Such people are called "Stateless People" in all three nations

Please note, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania all claim that the reason for these "Stateless" people is the fault of Russia. They see today's Russian Republic as the successor state of the Soviet Union and that the Soviet Union had 'Occupied' their country and under international law such occupying country can NOT transfer population to the country their are occupying and thus these 'Stateless people' should all move to Russia. i.e. these non-Baltic people are the product of 'Russian' Occupation and thus illegal and these people are NOT their citizens.

Russia denies it occupied the three Baltic Nations, instead all three agreed to join the Soviet Union. Russia notes they were elections on that decision. The Baltic leadership said those decisions were forced on them by the Soviet Union and thus invalid. This is complicated by the fact most of the Russians want to stay in the Baltics and the Baltics want them to stay but do not want them to have a political say, thus the Baltics Countries all like the present Stateless positions of these Ethnic Russians.

Now, Russia has a policy that any former citizen of the Soviet Union, no matter where they are living today, can became Citizens of Russia by moving into the Russian Republic. This has been used by the Baltic States as another justification to deny these Russian ethnics citizenship, all they have to do is go to Russia and get citizenship (The problem is under Russian Law, so can ANYONE who lived in the Baltic states in the days of the Soviet Union, including all of the Ethnic Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians in addition to the Russians ethnics living in the Baltics).

The problem is all of the Ethnic Russians tend to have family and business relationship in the Baltic Nations. To move mean to lose all they have, and these Russian Ethnics do NOT want to lose what they have. Thus the problem of these "Stateless people' have lingered for 20 years. It is being resolved in Lithuania, but the Russian Ethnics in Lithuania being just 6%, it is a minor problem in Lithuania. That is NOT true of Estonia or Latvia, in both countries you are talking about 1/3 of the country being Ethnic Russia and even under the above rules, many have moved to being Citizens since they can show living in the Baltics since BEFORE 1939. The problem is the high percentage of these 'stateless people' in both countries. Both Estonia and Latvia do not want to give them the right to vote for that mean increase support for the pro Russian parties in both countries. Thus this problem festers and until both counties decide to do what Lithuania has done it will continue to fester.

Sorry about the rant, but the problems of these stateless people have to be resolved, but no one wants to resolve it;

More on Stateless people:

http://www.unhcr.org/5231d3109.html

"The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."[2]"

American citizens who are out of the Country when they have a child have automatic citizenship for the child. Sometimes, the child carries a dual citizenship.

Some time ago, it was reported Cruz was going to renounce his Canadian citizenship, so I believe he had both. Not sure if he ever followed up with the paperwork for renouncing his Canadian citizenship.

Sam

The Constitution describes only one type of citizen -- born in the USA, without regard for parents. The only way to have anyone be natural born.

The Constitution also provides authority for Congress to enact uniform rules for naturalization. It is through these naturalization laws that currently children of citizens are usually granted citizenship. The rules citizenship under naturalization authority have been changed multiple times.

You write:

First, the Constitution obviously provided for natural born citizenship before the 14th amendment. Those born in the territory.

As you say, the term naturalization is usually used for those who immigrate and go through a lengthy naturalization process. But all the rules for children of citizens, etc. are derived as part of the uniform rules for naturalization. There has been a major effort to obscure this by bringing up irrelevant issues like British common law, which had been explicitly rejected during drafting.

If the Constitution had “obviously” provided that everyone born in the territory would be a citizen, then native-born blacks would have been citizens. The slaves obviously weren’t treated as citizens, and I think that in many states even free blacks weren’t accorded the rights of citizens, such as voting. That’s precisely why the issue was addressed in the Fourteenth Amendment.

You then write:

As the article mentions. Even the quote you gave indicates that it's based on the opinions of constitutional scholars and not from the Court.

Heck, is a c-section even really 'natural'?

Most important to the point, he is an American citizen and Mr. Grayson should not waste his time or ours. Although Mr. Cruz was born in in Calgary, Alberta, his mother is from Delaware, which normally is enough for him to claim American citizenship. Mr. Cruz also held dual citizenship as a Canadian. He renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014, but I don't think that was necessary since US law does not recognize dual citizenship and therefore has never considered Mr. Cruz to have been a Canadian citizen.

Although it is sometimes embarrassing admit it, Mr. Cruz is no less an American than I.

also of Canada. That law was changed in 1967.

worth the price of admission

bat-shit crazy Christian fundie lunatic. Sorry.

This seems like a waste of resources, however.

Beings in $$ and media...

Both of which he desperately needs.

he might wind up as VP to one of the other candidates. What then?

once and for all. It has been lurking for too long.

And, unfortunately, I think it may be Cruz in the end.
He has the evangelical blessings as well as the bankers'
one. That is a strong combination for the base. Don't
underestimate his brains, I would say.

Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2015, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

But keep on, Alan. No one can trash Cruz too much.

If there really is an anti-Christ, it's Ted:



Lyin' and lovin' it. That guy is twisted.

Also, Grayson, a Harvard trained lawyer and an economist knows what incredible harm Republicans have done to our future and the futures of our kids.

Go Alan! He is a real progressive populist and should be supported by all progressives!

challenging the constitutionality of Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) presidential bid if Cruz wins his party’s nomination. Any suit to determine if he is “unqualified” to be president should be filed now before he receives the nomination. Otherwise the GE will be muddied and give rise to a Constitutional crisis.

craziness is eligible to be President (shuddering at the thought).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/


What does it mean to be a "natural born citizen"?

Most legal experts contend it means someone is a citizen from birth and doesn’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.

If that’s the definition, then Cruz is a natural born citizen by being born to an American mother and having her citizenship at birth. The Congressional Research Service, the agency tasked with providing authoritative research to all members of Congress, published a report after the 2008 election supporting the thinking that "natural born" citizenship means citizenship held "at birth."


There are many legal and historical precedents to strongly back up this argument, experts have said.

Those precedents were the subject of a recent op-ed in the Harvard Law Review by two former solicitor generals of opposing parties, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, who worked for Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, respectively. They wrote that "natural born" had a longstanding definition dating back to colonial times.

British common law recognized that children born outside of the British Empire remained subjects, and were described by law as "natural born," Katyal and Clement wrote.

"The framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like ‘natural born,’ since the (British) statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War,’" they said.

Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution.

The Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795 was repealed in 1795. The term natural born has not been used in any law since then. This is a strong argument that natural born means born in the territory, and only that.

N/T

Last edited Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:24 AM - Edit history (1)

The problem that Woman was the daughter of three time Democratic Candidate for President William Jennings Bryan. She had been born in the USA, but during WWI had married an English Subject. Upon returning to the US, she and her husband went through naturalization procedures but the five year requirement for a Naturalized citizen to be elected to Congress had not run when she won the office. Thus Congress had to decided if she was a Natural born US Citizen, for that was the only grounds she had to be a member of the House of Representatives given she had NOT been five years a 'Naturalized American Citizen'.

This was a GOP controlled Congress deciding that a Woman elected from an overwhelming Democratic Congressional District could NOT sit as a Member of Congress on the grounds she lost her Native born Citizenship upon marriage to an Englishman while serving the US during WWI. If Congress voted she was NOT a Native Born American Citizen, the District would STILL go Democratic in the next election and the GOP would be blame for fighting against woman's rights. If they voted she NEVER lost her citizenship, she would take her seat, then they had another Democratic Vote in the House (and would be a change in the English Common Law rule on Citizenship). Seeing voting to seat her was the lesser of two evils, they ruled that the common law rule that a woman lost her citizenship upon marriage to a foreigner was NOT the law in the US. She took her seat in the House of Representatives.

This was a HEADACHE for BOTH parties, thus the push to define who was a US Citizen in the 1920s. That is when the definition of US Citizen as seen in the US Code was adopted. A Native Born citizen is anyone born in the US or to a US Citizen temporarily overseas (the Act also defined First Americans as US Native born Citizens saying the term 'Not Taxed' no longer applied to any First Americans for all of them were subject to US Taxation). This includes a child of any US Citizen. Such a Child MUST show that a US Citizen was their parent, illegitimacy was NOT grounds to be denied Citizenship (Through denouncement of Citizenship by the US Parent before conception is grounds to rule the child is NOT a US Citizen).

Thus the fact Cruz was born in Canada to an American Citizen is sufficient to make him a 'Native Born US Citizenship'. His father NEVER denounced his US Citizenship and thus Cruz is a 'Native born Citizen' as that is defined by US Law.

Sidenote; The reason for the Natural born Citizen requirement appears to be a protection against what was happening in Poland in the 1700s. Poland was an elected monarchy, i.e. at the death of any King, an election was held on who would be the next king. This invited all types of people to 'run' for the job, mostly lesser royalty of foreign nations. The Kings of Prussia, Kings of Austria, the Kings of Sweden, the Czar of Russia would all support various people to be elected King. France and England would also get involved but more behind the scene then the above four nations. In the case of Poland, the tendency was to support various non native princes to be King. Once elected, these Kings tended to favor the countries that supported their election NOT Poland. Thus the Native born Requirement was aimed at avoiding foreign influence on who would be elected President. Domestic Politics have been a bigger factor in our elections since 1787 but foreign buying of a President was what the founding fathers wanted to minimize with the rule that the President MUST be Native Born. Cruz being elected President will NOT subject the US to foreign powers and thus his citizenship status has nothing to do with the concerns of the founding fathers when the rule that any President be Native Born only. There are many GOOD reasons not to vote for him but his US Native Born Citizenship is NOT one of them.

The act you reference did not bestow nor define natural born citizenship. The Act of 1790 is the only use of the term "natural born" in any GS law under the Constitution, including those on naturalization. The Natualization Act of 1795 explicitly repealed the Act of 1790 and does not use the term natural born.

If you want to wade into the citizenship swamp, you really need this reference:

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/35-naturalization-and-citizenship.html

We have discussed all these issues multiple times here at DU. Here is fairly detailed discussion from 2012 that might also help.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002459927

IIRC, of the numerous suits brought by Orly Taitz and others, not one resulted in a judicial holding that Obama was eligible to be President. The reason is that the judges ruled instead that the various plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The cases were therefore dismissed without a decision on the merits.

If I'd been the judge, I would've thrown them out for a different reason: the political question doctrine. The Constitution says that Congress counts the electoral votes. To me, that means that decisions about eligibility are confided to Congress to decide.

IF the case were to get far enough to consider Cruz's citizenship, I think it's pretty clear that he's eligible to be President. I just don't see how Grayson would even get that far, given that the suits challenging Obama didn't get that far.

The precedents on standing would make a suit brought by Grayson every bit as frivolous as the suits brought by the birthers.

It's a grandstanding stunt and a dumb one at that.

We don't need to become crazy birthers.

however, if there's a war, they can (and will) you up. So all we have to do is ask Ted if he signed up for the draft in the US, if he did and Canada were to call him up, he would have to serve there. That's the problem with dual citizenship and that is what we have to guard against.

This is political grandstanding at its most blatant.

-- Mal

Last edited Sun Nov 29, 2015, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

but I'm still not.

Now we have our own birthers...

It is CONGRESS where the votes in the Electoral College are counted. Since that election is NOT a secret election we know how the vote will come out weeks before the actual count.

Once the official count is done, then and only then can any claim that the election was fraudulent or invalid can be brought up. Under the rules of the US Congress, when the vote is taken, it was be objected to by one member of both houses. In 2000, a handful of Members of the House of Representatives tried to bring up the problems of the elections but not a single Senator joined them. Under the rules of Congress that meet that the Complaint was dismissed. The courts have long held that election is to be contested it must be contested to Congress first. If Congress decides no merit to the Complaint, the court will uphold what Congress had decided.

Thus a Senator saying he will contest the nomination is meaningless. The time to contest the citizenship of a Presidential Candidate is after the official counting of the Electoral College. The Courts will uphold what ever finding of fact Congress made, including that a claim had no merit to even be heard. i.e. if this Senator does make this claim but no members of the House joins him, the complaint will be dismissed.

This is like acknowledging when an Amendment to the Constitution has been ratified by the required number of states, the Courts have long rule that finding of fact is up to Congress and if Congress says the Amendment had been ratified, the Courts will NOT overturn that ruling.