reform: “please explain to me how you obtain duel citizenship? And why that would not matter to you? I understand that our founders at the time had understood that when writing the documents no? If they found it not necessary why would you write it that way? Had to have been a reason for it no.”
As I quoted for Jim S: “U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality. However, a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. nationality.”
Ted Cruz, like many US citizens born outside of the USA, did not choose dual citizenship but the US really only concerns itself with whether or not you are a US citizen and if you ever denounce or ask for your US citizenship to be revoked. The Founding Fathers were obviously concerned with loyalty but they based their laws on British “natural born” legal definition and precedence even those laws, pre-1787 and US Constitution, allowed for British citizens to be born outside of England. “Natural born” means the same thing today.
February 2, 2016 at 12:36pm
Norm D. Plume: “The standard for Natural Born citizen has always been, and will be adjudicated to still be this:
“Born on US soil or that of a US holding abroad (embassy, military installation, etc.) of TWO _CITIZEN_ parents.”
You are completely wrong. The rules relating to citizenship have change many times and are clearly laid out in the dotGOV links I provided several times, which you obviously did not read. Here it is, once again, for the reading impaired:
There are only two types of citizens in the USA – natural born and naturalized. Cruz is not a naturalized citizen and therefore he most certainly is natural born.
Answer this question: “Have you seen a copy of Cruz’s naturalization paperwork?” I will then add “if it exists, then where is it?” Show it to the world. More than likely, it simply doesn’t exist because Cruz is natural born, but the partisan nay-sayers just don’t care. They won’t even humor a logical conclusion or debate its merits. Rumor is enough for them and their preferences.
If you really want to split hairs with me, then try this question… what is the difference of “natural born by statute” and “natural born by birth?” For bonus points, we can discuss jus sanguinis (right of blood) vs jus soli (right of the soil). The courts will have to settle these questions if this debate goes any further. Everything else, IMHO, is partisan projection.
February 2, 2016 at 12:29pm
Jim S: “My typo, correct Rafael was born in 70 and his mother voted in Canada in 1974, thereby losing her US citizenship.”
Keep going. You’re almost there. Ted Cruz, born in 1970, not 1974, already had potential dual citizenship the moment he was born.
So how does the US handle dual citizenships? Here, let me help you, once again:
“U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality. However, a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. nationality.”
Once Ted Cruz was born, in 1970, and a US citizen, his mother’s behavior in 1974 had nothing to do with it unless she changed Ted Cruz’s citizenship, which she did not.
WWD: “your assertion is that Cruz’ mother was a U.S. citizen on the day that he entered the world, and that was all he needed (mother) to be natural born?”
You obviously didn’t read dotGOV link. Here are the relevant parts:
“In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:
•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and
•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision.
And the applicable provision here? If… “The genetic or non-genetic gestational legal mother is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, and the birth date is after December 23, 1952.”
And… “The mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of at least one year.”
There are some interesting considerations for married and unmarried parents, but the key issue is the US citizenship of at least one parent at the time of birth. Cruz’s mother was a US citizen when he was born.
Then there’s this… “All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.”
Jim S wrote: “Senator Cruz was born in Canada in 1974.”
No, Ted Cruz was born in 1970. You’re already off to a bad start.
Jim S continued: “His US citizen mother and Cuban born father registered to vote in Canadian elections in 1970. Mother Cruz gave up her US citizenship when she registered and voted in Canada for years before Rafael Jr was born in her adopted country.”
HYPOTHETICAL: Even if Ted Cruz’s mother, a US Citizen who met all the requirements to give birth to a US Citizen abroad at the time, had attempted to become a Canadian citizen it would have taken her at *least* 5 years (she was there for only 4 years when Ted was born) and even then she’d *still* be a US Citizen until renouncing US Citizenship, which she never did.
The US doesn’t recognize a dual citizenship and would have considered Ted Cruz’s mother to be a US Citizen. Therefore, Ted Cruz was born a US Citizen, never had to apply to be a US Citizen, and did not need to be naturalized. You are either “natural born” or “naturalized.” So, which one is Ted Cruz since he was never naturalized and his mother was a US Citizen when he was born? Yep, he’s natural born.
The burden of proof was on you since the very beginning, since you made the unsupported and highly inaccurate claim. So, prove that Ted Cruz’s mother was not an eligible US Citizen at the time Ted Cruz was born. Go ahead and try. At some point, read this…
An interesting perspective (calling for resistance): “Clerk Davis is constrained by her civic duty is as an elected official in Kentucky, sworn to uphold the Constitution. As a lower civil magistrate, there is only one course of action – to refuse to issue the marriage license to the same-sex couple BECAUSE the federal court order requiring her to issue the license is based upon a wholly illegitimate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to marry. Although some have tried to muddy the waters as to her reasons for resisting, this case is not a matter of her conscience or her personal religious scruples. It is about her civic duty as a civil government official. She resists illegality not because her conscience is offended, but rather it is her conscience and religious beliefs that gives her the courage to stand against lawlessness. She is well aware that she could face the court’s sanction for disobedience of a court order, perhaps including civil or criminal contempt of court.” http://conservativetribune.com/clerk-must-fight-same-sex
September 4, 2015 at 10:02am
Don’t bury your lede: render unto Caesar his/her/its marriage license. The grammar lesson was unnecessary, especially as your opening remark. English language needs a gender-neutral singular pronoun and “they/them/their” works just fine, even if it annoys prescriptive grammar police. BTW, dm, you have a tendency to write in sentence fragments. So what? I understand your meaning and know that you are getting your point across to your readers.
As I wrote before: “That said, if the clerk is willing to lose their job to make a statement, then more power to them! Welcome to Civil Disobedience 101, class will start now.”
And… now she is in jail and the license was issued by the deputy clerk. Kim stood for what she believed in and paid a minor cost, relatively speaking, for that statement. More power to her!
Back to my original post, who made this decision and got away with it in the first place? Why did they get away with it? I’m genuinely curious to know.
“In 2004, clerks who violated the law to perform same-sex marriages were celebrated. In 2009, Gov. Jerry Brown was a civil rights hero for refusing to perform one of his essential duties. Yet in 2015, the Kim Davises of our country need to watch out for people with pitchforks who cannot tolerate even a pebble threatening the Goliath of the new marriage regime.”
Even though I am not a supporter of licensed same-sex marriage, I am inclined to agree with Carly Fiorina here – a public servant should do their job. That said, if the clerk is willing to lose their job to make a statement, then more power to them! Welcome to Civil Disobedience 101, class will start now.
Here’s a question I have that isn’t often discussed: what gave county clerks the authority to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the first place?
We keep hearing about the 14th Amendment and “equal protection,” but, even though it’s not currently popular or fashionable, a gay male and lesbian female, or any future LGBT-QIAS+ member in between, have every right (equal) to marry a member of the opposite sex as do a hetero-normative, cis-gendered, male or female.
I know. It’s all about *love* now, even though love is not the sole consideration or a secure foundation for family building anyway, but I digress. On that note, individuals with same-sex attractions who chose traditional marriage to have and raise a family are fascinating and admirable people – I applaud them.
The next question, of course, is: why is the government even in the marriage licensing business? Also, how can we limit “love” to only two people? Unintended consequences – or, are they?
The only rules that make sense to me, from a small government perspective, are to keep biological parents on birth certificates (to prove heritage/origin) and everything else is personal and/or contractual.
“a public servant should do their job”
Well, first of all, that would be “his/her” job, not "their" job. You are referring to Kim, and there is only one of her.
The main issue is, however, which should prevail — man’s law or God’s law?
In addition, when she took the job, there was no Supreme Court Ruling on this issue, so the conditions of employment have changed without her consent, request, or involvement. That affects the situation as well.
 September 1, 2015 at 10:30am
“Eric Holder is still in control of the ‘Justice’ Dept. and has successfully halted cases of FEDERAL VOTER FRAUD and dismissed them so NOT doing an investigation or even reading Ms. Clinton her Rights on the matter is a forgone conclusion.”
You must mean Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder left the office of the US Attorney General back in April of this year.
August 25, 2015 at 11:59am
Rant(ed): “Cruz is ineligible, and even if he were he has ties to Goldman Sachs and the Bushes.” … “Rand Paul is probably the only guy worth voting for out of the gigantic field presented to us.” … “I always argue with facts I can back up and prove.”
What facts? Cruz is ineligible? Nope, many high profile legal minds have already laid out the case that Cruz is indeed eligible – just as Obama would still have been even had he been born in Kenya. Ties to Goldman Sachs and the Bushes? What’s your point there, exactly? It’s quite meaningless even if true. You will not make it as a candidate without money and every candidate will have corporate financial support of some sort – even Bernie Sanders (unions will be his top contributors). Rand Paul is a decent candidate, and I like him quite a bit, but he lacks the broad appeal that would make him a likely nomination or general election winner.
I was running mini-sprints on a track near my work with my little man just the other day and told him to always run, as fast as he can, well past the finish line. When he asked me why, I showed him Billy Mills 1964 10K Tokyo Olympic Gold Medal finish and then several other related YT videos. This video will now be a part of that “never quit” and “it’s not over until it’s over” speech. A loss like that isn’t quickly forgotten. I barely missed a state championship win over a stutter-step on the last hurdle, we were both off our steps and not ready to switch our leads. Even though you may be exhausted, it’s always worth it to put in that extra little ounce of effort!
That simply don't work in OUR [LOOOOOOOOOOOOOZER-[D]ADMINISTRATION!!
 August 24, 2015 at 1:04pm
Always the “do as I say, not as I do” philosophy with these peeps!
May 30, 2015 at 7:37am
MSH, the most important aspect of what I wrote in my initial reply was this: “Without trying to get money or other *tangible* benefit by use of one of a few specific medals or badges (not just the uniform) it’s not really a case of ‘stolen valor.’ People who care about the difference really should look up and read the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.”
Wearing the uniform AND claiming you served, as you mentioned, even when you did not, still doesn’t make it a case (legally speaking) of stolen valor. That said, please feel free to call the fakers out and film their stupidity for all the world to see.
 May 30, 2015 at 7:24am
RP, you have it backwards, the puppy will get MOUNTAINS of potential GF attention!
Yea.... the puppy-MUCH!! You....not-so-much... .
I knew that our relationhship was waining....when the dog gave me a hug&kiss... and she shook my hand. Sooooo... I dumped the girlfriend and gotteth a dog (or-two..)... much better. Now, when I get home at 3-in-duh-mormin' the dog doesn't say: "Where the he!! have you been?!".
April 15, 2015 at 1:37am
VCV just doesn’t get it even though the history is plain to see. The legal challenges we are debating are a direct result of the issue being made political by those who wanted same sex marriage in the first place. Conservatives did not start this and it isn’t a question of “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” The pendulum was pushed by same sex marriage advocates and the legal battles (and the recent rash of state sponsored RFRA laws) are quite obviously the pushback.
 April 15, 2015 at 1:12am
The Blaze wrote: “…Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the 2010 ban was voluntarily as part of efforts to encourage progress in nuclear talks.
“The announcement of the sales has prompted critics of the Iran deal to be even more skeptical.”
That’s funny – Sergei Lavrov was the same Russian diplomat Hillary Clinton handed the “reset” button to. As a reminder, Hillary’s staff chose the word “peregruzka,” which means “overloaded” or “overcharged.” I guess the Russians just hit that same “reset” button when they want to make some more money from countries we “overcharge” and “overload” us in the process.
 April 15, 2015 at 12:40am
Fakers wearing a combat uniform even though they’ve never served is nothing new but I don’t get a few things:
One, why do fakers so often flip up the collar? That’s usually only done when wearing armor (flack vest w/ plates or simple plate carriers).
Two, his US flag is in the middle of the velcro on his right arm and it is always supposed to be worn on the pocket flap at the top. How do fakers mess this one up? It’s too easy to get right. Search out the regs online, dummies!
Three, he could simply be a PVT and wear no insignia but if he were serving he *would* have to wear his name on his right side – whether he was out for a quick bite on the way home or not.
Four, where’s his t-shirt? The ACU blouse will rub you raw without a shirt on underneath it – AND nobody wears ACU top w/o a shirt. Maybe that’s why he flipped up his collar.
Five, this is one of his most egregious errors IMHO, he *is* wearing the “U.S. ARMY” patch on his left, on the chest. It’s in the right place BUT if you’re not a service member then that’s the ONE patch you really *should* take off – and take off the flag while you’re at it!
 April 15, 2015 at 12:29am
I’m sure this guy just wanted some attention, probably a few “thanks for your service” comments, attention from girls, and perhaps a free drink or two. Without trying to get money or other *tangible* benefit by use of one of a few specific medals or badges (not just the uniform) it’s not really a case of “stolen valor.” People who care about the difference really should look up and read the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.
BTW, “fatigues” are a Vietnam era uniform and haven’t been around since the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) replaced them in the 1980s. This fellow was wearing what replaced the BDU, the Army Combat Uniform (ACU), and was doing it poorly. He was wearing a unit patch, the U.S. ARMY patch, and an American flag patch.
 April 3, 2015 at 10:48am
“A press release published by the church said that the visit lasted 20 minutes, confirming that the topics discussed centered on ‘families, immigration, humanitarian aid, and religious freedom and non-discrimination.’”
What could you possibly discuss from this list of topics, with any kind of real or meaningful depth, in 20 minutes?
20 minutes minus the time it took to listen to a Charlie Rich song to set the mood of the meeting.
Not with the shallowness of the preezy.
It's not immigration. It's an invasion.
"What could you possibly discuss from this list of topics, with any kind of real or meaningful depth, in 20 minutes?"
Obama, "Suck it."
Mormons, "We have some legitimate concerns about the policies of... "
Obama, "Suck it."
Mormons, "But, Mr President.. we seriously think this will impact...
Obama, "Suck it,"
(repeat as such for 20 minutes).
Probably a typical Obama "negotiation" session. He comes into the room and tells those present what he wants, tells them to do it, or else he will wield his pen and executive authority and do it himself.
Ker: Mr. Script writer gave him a condensed , 20 minute version .
Im sure all the topics mentioned came up. Being the great dark lord obama would after all rub salt in the wound.
"MuahahahaHHAHahahah i am using tax dollars to fund people like gosnell to cut the spines of living, screaming for help, late term babies."
You know, his standard off the prompter remarks.
Well, good grief. Maybe he was in a hurry passing through on his way to the great money tree in California.
President Barack Obama held a closed-door meeting with leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Thursday night.... no surprise as it is well known this church does everything behind closed doors.
20mins? I was thinking the same thing. Nothing could have been discussed of any meaning in 20mins. Obama knows it all, so not even a prophet could enlighten his majesty. Now I know why President Thomas S.Monson said that he was saving his energy for General Conference which starts tomorrow. He truly is a prophet of God. :)