12 Responses to “You need a Republican Presidential candidate to file a case of lack of eligibility against Rubio, Jindal and Cruz”

1. Jerry G
   September 26th, 2015 @ 6:11 am

   Only in America could three ineligible candidates be running for president. Not only that, but receiving incredible support. It’s an indication of the general stupidity and apathy of Americans that allows this farce. But then look at Obama who was elected twice on the basis of skin color.

2. jerry
   September 26th, 2015 @ 6:55 am

   I think the reason they are running is because the Constitution is null and void pretty much now? Can you name very many places in society where its enforced? So in light of this fact they are in fact eligible to run. Anyone see the logic? Anyone disagree?

3. Lorene B
   September 26th, 2015 @ 7:24 am

   Jerry, re your first comment. These three know how uninformed, stupid, don’t care the voters are. They think that if they can run, they can win. That is why their dirty linen needs to be aired.

4. Kevin J Lankford
   September 26th, 2015 @ 9:18 am

   As I have stated before, there is a surprising number of people who rather than search out the truth themselves, accept as fact the lies of contemporary liberal frauds claiming to be Constitutional scholars, but are actually agenda driven supporters of the fraud and his foreign infiltration of office. Even the claimed conservative media and radio hosts will barely confront obama’s forged birth certificate, and will have spasms if asked to address the true definition of “Natural Born” citizen, referring people to what they surely know themselves is a government propaganda site, Factcheck.

   They would have us believe there are only two forms of U.S. citizenship. All who have some connection to American dirt, or are born of an American mother or an American father, are by their definition natural born citizens. Other wise they must be naturalized.

   By their definition any American male might travel across europe and asia sowing his oats, leaving natural born U.S. citizens any where he may roam. Or just any illegal alien might sneak across our border knocking up American dingbats all across our country fathering natural born U.S. citizens.

   It just does not concern these fake experts or the fools that accept their lies as truth that the whole purpose of the “Natural Born Citizen” clause being insisted upon for the qualification of the office of President was to insure against dual citizenship, that there could be no conflict of loyalties, no compromised allegiance. Then again, perhaps they are all purposefully aware.

   Just yesterday I posted this same comment, very nearly word for word on WND. For some reason it was moderated out.

5. Jerry G
   September 26th, 2015 @ 10:53 am

   With regard to comment #2 to say that the Constitution is null and void is to say that the USA as a country is null and void and we should just follow the dictates of an international power structure. If we no longer have a Constitution we no longer have freedom of speech or religion. We no longer have the right to bear arms in self defense. We are then simply serfs subject to the whims of our masters. And that is the directions we aregoing.

6. nwo's Nemesis on the Premesis...
   September 26th, 2015 @ 10:56 am

   Jerry: it’s not cause the Constitution is null and void…

   It’s due to the fact that too many Americans are just plain stupid!

   They don’t have the wherewithall to even try to check out something, to see if it’s true or not!

   And too many of them can’t discern truth when it’s presented to them!

7. nwo's Nemesis on the Premesis...
   September 26th, 2015 @ 10:59 am

   As well, don’t forget to include Santorum in that group.

   Of the (4)…Jindal and Rubio are the hard-core ones, trying to become the (R) version of O, by being ineligible.

   And this will really mess up the Constitution!

8. Rene'
   September 26th, 2015 @ 5:29 pm

   The constitution is as valid as we make it. If we, as an “American People” collective, allow it to be null and void, it will be. As long as we have patriotic Americans willing to stand up and fight and DIE for the Constitution, it will be valid! It stands and states our freedoms. It IS worth fighting for and it will be!

9. Jim Buzzell
   September 26th, 2015 @ 7:56 pm

   Has anyone ever sued SCOTUS on the merits of “lack of standing”, its is codified nowhere in our laws, its is only a precedence established by the courts over the years, very progressive and the courts do not make law only interpret the laws based on their constitutionality???

10. turnright
    September 26th, 2015 @ 8:18 pm

    The general argument against R, J and C has finally gained some dramatic import here.

    It has been so obvious that the dems must be chomping at the bit to have any of the three be the nominee. The morning after that would happen, if not sooner, at least one federal lawsuit and 50 state suits would be filed to prevent R, J or C from receiving any Electoral College votes from any of the states. And of course the dems will structure all of the suits so that they cannot be consolidated into a grand, nationwide suit.

    All the dems would have to do is prevent perhaps one swing state from casting its Electoral College votes. Two or three states of sufficient size would guarantee the White House for the Left.

    Besides, just the knowledge by the voters that the thing is in the courts big time will be enough to have many Republicans not vote. “What’s the use in voting if obama’s Supreme Court justices are just going to invalidate the Republican candidate?”, they say.

11. Steve Wittlake
    September 27th, 2015 @ 11:20 am

    Pulled from internet on 14th amendment.

    Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment

    Tags:

    immigration

    illegal immigration

    anchor babies

    The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

    Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

    Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

    In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

    Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

    The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

    The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

    Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called ‘Slaughter-House cases’ [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ excluded from its operation ‘children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.’ In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be ‘not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.’

    Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

    The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

    Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents’ nationality or immigration status.

    American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

12. Steve Wittlake
    September 27th, 2015 @ 11:40 am

    I would have liked to have underlined the important parts but there is no method of doing it unless Orly can do it.

Leave a Reply