Article II Ineligibility; Clears Up Any Confusion
It's amazing how many publishers claim no "conservatives" are going after Canadian-born Cruz's Article II ineligibility.
Never mind the fact that the legal challenges currently filed against Canadian-Cruz were filed by Republicans.
And every major birther publishers been hammering Canadian-Cruz over his ineligibility.
Facts just don't seem to matter anymore!
Headline via Buzz Flash:
- Idiocy @ Buzz Flash -
Attorney Mario Apuzzo published the following in response to the
Maybe this will clear up your confusion.
If Obama was born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father, he would not have qualified under the naturalization Act that applied to him when he was born to be a citizen of the United States at birth because his mother was too young when he was born (the U.S. citizen mother had to be physically present in the U.S. for at least 10 years, 5 of which were accumulated after the age of 14; hence she had to be at least 19 but she was only 18). In contrast, Cruz, who was born in Canada to a U.S .citizen mother and alien father qualifies as a citizen of the United States at birth because his mother was old enough (she was physically present in the U.S. for more than 10 years; she was 35 years old when Ted was born).
So there is no racism etc. going on with the birthers or the Tea Party.
You can do the research and get the full statute details and exact language. Maybe you can write another article in which you can explain this simple explanation to people who continue to think as you hopefully previously did.
Retired Navy Commander and Obama ineligibility litigant Charles Kerchner posted the following:
The premise of your article that no one in the constitutionalist (aka birther) movement has not protested and tried to call attention to Ted Cruz's birth in Canada and that it makes him constitutionally NOT eligible is wrong. It is a straw man premise. You are obviously not paying attention to the "birther" websites or are deliberately ignoring them to write this article. See: http://BirtherReport.com Many have challenged Ted Cruz's eligibility for many years. See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/confirmed-sen-ted-cruz-releases-canadian-birth-certificate-was-a-dual-citizen-at-birth-not-eligible-to-be-u-s-president and https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/ted-cruz-is-missing-two-legs-the-three-legged-stool-test-for-natural-born-citizen
Another excellent online newspaper covering the lack of constitutional eligibility of various candidates, including Ted Cruz, is http://www.thepostemail.com Browse on by that site and you will clearly see that Ted Cruz's birth in Canada is not being ignored. "Birthers" or better named "constitutionalists" are equal opportunity on this subject. If one is not born in the country to parents who are both citizens (born or naturalized), said person is not a "natural born Citizen' and thus is not constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Also see this prominent attorney's blog who has been writing about constitutional eligibility issues for years, including about Ted Cruz and Obama: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/01/if-winston-churchill-was-not-even.html
AWARD GOES TO JANE STILLWATER: