Comments on Advance Indiana™: Donald Trump Is Right To Question's Ted Cruz's Eligibility

I have my fathers Illinois birth certificate,my gr...

2016-03-22T02:56:21.983-05:00

I have my fathers Illinois birth certificate,my grandfathers naturalization certificate, and my Polish birth certificate, my father fought in ww2,in the Allied Polish forces and was a POW,in germany, and was a veteran of ww2, i was born in 1949 in Poland.
My father came back to US in 1960, i fallowed him in 1961, i spent 56 years in the US, lived in Illinois,and the last 12 years in Indiana, i paid federal taxes all my life,Illinois state taxes, and Indiana state taxes for the last 12 years.Since i moved to Indiana,i am unable to get my Illinois drivers license changed to Indianas.I don't want to run for president,i just want a drivers license in Indiana,they want a birth certificate issued in a county of a state in the US,or a certificate of citizenship, before they will exchange the license. Maybe i should stop paying Indiana income tax.
We are all equal under the law, but some are more equal than others,especially if they are senators.By the way i was also drafted for Vietnam. Did Cruz ever sign up for the Selective Service?. What a screwed up country,and also the state of Indiana.

Gary, your argument is much more cogent than those...

2016-01-08T07:16:41.830-05:00

Gary, your argument is much more cogent than those announced by the presidential opponents of Ted Cruz. However, I'd posit that the argument from history is in Sen. Cruz's favor.

The Framers came from a British common law background. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, British law held that kids born outside the UK born to British subjects were “natural-born Subjects." The Framers consciously used the same "natural born" wording as they understood it at the time. Thus, it can certainly be argued that the Framers' understanding of "natural born" was coterminous with the British definition.

Obviously, there's an easy counterargument: the pols who ratified the Constitution were duplicitous & not to be trusted. After all, many of the same blokes who who purported to defend liberty with the Constitution sought to destroy it with the Alien & Sedition Act, National Bank Act, etc.

I'm old enough to recall when most legal schol...

2016-01-07T15:58:47.112-05:00

I'm old enough to recall when most legal scholars argued otherwise. It wasn't until Barry came along in 2008 that there was a dramatic shift in its interpretation. This comes as no surprise since we've disregarded most of our immigration laws in an effort to destroy out national sovereignty.

It's not complicated.... Anyone who is a US ci...

2016-01-07T15:52:35.749-05:00

It's not complicated.... Anyone who is a US citizen AT BIRTH is a natural born citizen. Doesn't matter where they were born.

Where does it say the courts are the only ones who...

2016-01-07T09:02:03.820-05:00

Where does it say the courts are the only ones who get to fill in the blanks. Courts are supposed to try cases of who owes what to whom when two horse wagons get tangled up. Their job is to apply the law to wagon cases. They don't get to say what the law means then apply the law. That way of doing it gives them power over at least two branches of government.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429356/ted-cr...

2016-01-07T04:24:35.647-05:00

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429356/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen More on the subject.

The Supreme Court didn't decide until 2008 wha...

2016-01-06T22:00:59.189-05:00

The Supreme Court didn't decide until 2008 what the Second Amendment's right to bear arms meant, and that was a 5-4 decision. By one vote, Americans escaped the possibility that our government could deprive its citizenship of private gun ownership rights. It's scary, but that's the way the Republic operates, although they didn't expect judges to substitute the judgment of Congress for their own personal view of what a law should or should not do. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Natural born citizen is an undefined constitutional term. The Court should fill in the blanks using accepted principles of constitutional interpretation, not their personal view of who should be eligible to run for president.

"Believe it or not, the federal courts have n...

2016-01-06T21:45:16.783-05:00

"Believe it or not, the federal courts have never decided the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the context of deciding a person's eligibility to serve as president of the United States."

So? Where does the Constitution say the federal courts are any great insights into what the Constitution says?

Seems like looking to courts for answers instead of getting answers from where we should got us into a lot of the problems we have today.