12 Responses to “Now NY magazine writes about Ted Cruz’s lack of eligibility”

1. Steve Wittlake
   January 7th, 2016 @ 12:11 pm

   There is a side of this whole story of Ted Cruz that nobody is really talking about and I think a lot of people are wondering the same thing I am.
   Rafael Cruz and Eleanor Darragh were married
   in Canada and citizens of Canada before Ted Cruz was even born and they would probably still be there today if the oil industry in Calgary had not gone south.
   Where is there any Automatic Naturalization coverage for Ted Cruz in this case.

2. Davey Crockett
   January 7th, 2016 @ 1:34 pm

   This needs to be addressed ASAP!

   And if Cruz hesitates and doesn’t want to show his birth certificate (which is in Canada!), then, he is ineligible!

   If there’s no birth certificate for his mother, then, he’s ineligible!

   But both of his parents had to have been American citizens, as well, but he still was born in Canada! That’s dual loyalty!

   Cruz you are playing with our Constitution, so knock it off, Jack!

   You need to get a life, and stop acting like a junior high prankster!

   Orly and all of us have had enough of this B.S. coming from somone that WAS born in another country!

   I’m surprised that you would put any of us through any more treasonous activity!

   That alone makes you ineligible!

3. EARTHPLANET
   January 7th, 2016 @ 1:41 pm

   I like to see Billary take lie detector test.. Also Cruz can join in to..

   https://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/father-of-benghazi-victim-challenges-hillary-to-lie-detector-test-video/

   I guess that’s why Billary running for President..

   To stay out of the prison.

   Billary and Barry Soetorah for Prison 2016..

4. Steve Wittlake
   January 7th, 2016 @ 2:41 pm

   Ted Cruz’s Canadian birth certificate and his
   revocation are available but there is no way to put it on this type of website.

5. Veritas
   January 7th, 2016 @ 3:27 pm

   McCain via Newsmax:McCain: Cruz’s Canadian Birth Legitimate Issue, May Be Up to SCOTUS . While Dick Morris is writing that Cruz IS eligible. The latter seems to be a matter of wishful thinking…

6. Dan
   January 7th, 2016 @ 4:04 pm

   “The Obama birthers are loons,” Grayson says. “There’s no plausible legal argument that Obama is not qualified to be president, that’s ridiculous. There’s a very good legal argument that Ted Cruz is not qualified to be president.”

   First, that is such a poor statement, just poor. The bottom line has to do w/ Natural Born … and it’s definition. Lots of precedent here in favor of Cruz and no definition in favor of Cruz. However, there are writings after the Constitution that might not favor Obama, Rubio and I believe one past President. It could never be unraveled!!!!

7. Veritas
   January 7th, 2016 @ 5:44 pm

   Greta talked to Trump and Fiorina about it tonight.

8. John
   January 7th, 2016 @ 5:49 pm

   This will go up to the SCOTUS. Three different cases in Ill., FL, VT, have been filed through their state courts so far, so I would say now more will follow.

9. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   January 7th, 2016 @ 9:18 pm

   what did they say? I did not watch TV lately

10. Paula Hoehn
    January 7th, 2016 @ 9:38 pm

    To Steve, click on this link below to view Cruz’s Certificate of Birth:

    https://postimg.org/image/k0b0mq8c7/

    ——
    Paula Hoehn

    For free uploading of images that can be linked for viewing, go to this website:

    https://postimg.org

11. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    January 8th, 2016 @ 5:26 am

    nobody found his mother’s birth certificate in Wilmington, DE

12. RacerJim
    January 8th, 2016 @ 6:38 am

    All of the conservative radio/tv show hosts I’ve recently heard/watched discuss Cruz’s, et al’s, eligibility — including Mark Levin and my favorite radio host here in the metro DC area, Chris Plante — have effectively claimed that anyone born to one U.S. citizen anywhere in the world was born a citizen of the U.S. and therefore is a natural born citizen of the U.S.
    Obviously that is so bogus due to the fact that the U.S. Constitution makes it perfectly clear that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are not, and therefore cannot be considered, one-in-the-same in at least the following three places:

    1) Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 (relevant verbiage): “No person shall be a Representative who shall not have…been seven Years a Citizen…”;
    2) Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 (relevant verbiage): “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have…been nine Years a Citizen…”
    3) Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (relevant verbiage)”No person except a natural born Citizen, or Citizen a the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President;…”

    The above make it clear as clear as clear can be that while a “Citizen” may be a Representative, Senator or President prior to the adoption of the Constitution only a “natural born Citizen” may be President after adoption of the Constitution.

    Since I in no way, shape or form claim to be a legal expert someone who is please correct me if I’m wrong here but in my opinion there are only two possible ways that someone can claim “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are legally one-in-the-same:
    1) Cite where the Constitution, or an Amendment thereto, specifically equates the two;
    2) Cite a SCOTUS ruling, or even an opinion, which specifically equates the two.

Leave a Reply