That’s it. I support Trump UPDATED

Loading

trump supporter injured

 

I have officially had enough of this sh*t.  Deport the bastards. All of them.

It’s one thing to disagree with candidates. It’s another to protest. Rioting is over the top.  Hurting people is beyond the pale.

Police clashed with hundreds of protesters outside Donald Trump’s rally in Southern California on Thursday night.

At least one police car was smashed up as hundreds of demonstrators – many of them waving Mexican flags – took to the streets outside the Pacific Amphitheater in Costa Mesa, Orange County where Trump was speaking.

The protesters flooded the street outside the amphitheater with some stomping on cars, hurling rocks at motorists and forcefully declaring their opposition to Trump – bringing traffic to a halt and creating a tense standoff with authorities.

One Trump supporter was pictured with a bloody face after clashing with the anti-Trump activists, many of whom appeared to be young Hispanic people.

The violence in Southern California where Latinos make up a large segment of the population suggests Trump may face more of this in the days to come, as he campaigns ahead of the state’s June 7 primary. Trump currently leads Kasich and Cruz in the California polls, with an estimated 45.7 per cent of voters, according to Real Clear Politics.

The goddam mainstream media is downplaying the violence, dismissing it as “protests.”

Just imagine for a moment the shrieking outrage if Trump supporters had tried to flip a car outside a Hillary Clinton rally. Imagine the fury at the sight of a bloody man wearing a Hillary shirt. So how did the mainstream media cover the anti-Trump riot? Hot Air’s Larry O’Connor has the details:

Check out the LA Times headline: Protests rage outside Trump rally in Orange County; 17 arrested, police car smashed. Maybe it’s me, but if your headline includes the phrase: “police car smashed,” perhaps you should go ahead and call it a riot and not the benign and righteous sounding “protest.” The Times write-up of the ugly violence begins with more apologetic language: “Hundreds of demonstrators filled the street outside the Orange County amphitheater where Donald Trump held a rally Thursday night…” “Demonstrators”??? This is a very deliberate use of language. When you have a righteous cause, you’re a “demonstrator.” The Times is using language equating these thugs with someone marching in Selma. “Demonstrators” sounds heroic.

The Washington Post used the morally-neutral term “clashed.” Trump protesters clashed with police officers here after a campaign rally Thursday hosted by the Republican presidential candidate.

 

This is not a damn “protest.” It’s a riot:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdpmJsPhJck[/youtube]

 

Trump supporters are being injured:

 

 

As if that’s not enough, these dirtbags are making clear where their loyalties lie:

 

 

images courtesy of the LA Times and the Daily Mail

These events are going to make campaign fodder for Trump. They validate everything he says. How dare these illegal alien nematodes attempt to deny Trump and other their right to free speech? What the freaking hell is wrong with the left? How would it be received and reported were attendees to a Hillary rally attacked and injured? How would it be reported if Hillary was rushed and denied entry to a campaign event?

And those flags? They’re going to suck up the benefits and privileges offered by this country and then shove this in our faces?

 

I don’t think so. ¡Fuera de mi país!

Trump is a jerk, but damn it, this makes clear he’s right. This garbage is going to make Trump the next President. It’s not the left being denied their rights. It’s not Hillary being jeopardized. The left is behind all of the violence, illegal and legal. If they think violence and intimidation is going to succeed, they’re yugely mistaken.

It has to stop. Trump is the guy to do it.

Felicitanos, culos. You’ve made another Trump convert.

 

UPDATE

 

Get. Out.

UPDATE II

https://twitter.com/_R1ghtW1ng9O2IO/status/726152925534248960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

via Breitbart

And hey, let’s watch those peaceful anti-Trumpers rough up a supporter


 

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
222 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Redteam:


In no section of the Constitution addressing citizenship does it say two parents.

Actually, it does. That is all inclusive in ‘natural born’.

OK, so quote the U.S. Constitution precisely and show where the word two is.

Clearly that judge had no clue what he was attempting to rule on.

So, now according to you, not only was the judge derelict in his duty, he was incompetent, as well.

@DrJohn:
Well, yeah, I suppose it’s a reasonable assumption to deduce that “several Trump supporters have been bloodied and beaten by illegals and the left”. I guess you got me there, or, something. And it’s also reasonable to say “those weren’t Trump supporters rioting outside a Hillary rally” and that “those weren’t Trump supporters smashing a police car”.

But no one (at least openly or documented) is exonerating them or hinting at paying their legal fees whereas Trump has promoted it in speech after speech. No one is spurring them on or exploiting their anger with direct and coded language as Trump has made that his hallmark. No one that I’m aware of other than Trump has openly stated that his hecklers “should be roughed up” by his supporters, actually advocating to bypass due process and just “beat the hell out of them”- deliver a quick and fast beating sentence for throwing a proverbial tomato or flipping a bird. Or how about “not blaming” the supporters for rioting?

And even if you can equate Hillary or the left or even if you cherry pick selective incidents, it doesn’t compare to the level Trump has taken it nor does it rationalize your rather asinine argument that he’s the man to end it.

@Ditto:

If his mother actually retained her US citizenship, and did not in fact file to be naturalized as a Canadian citizen, then Yes, Cruz is a US citizen

Well, there you have it.

Ted Cruz’ mother a) never applied for Canadian citizenship and b) had not yet met the statutory residency requirements that would have allowed her to do so, all according to the Canadian government.

And I am tired of these “birthers” who refuse to admit they are wrong simply because they are too dishonest to admit they support the carnival barker known as Donald Trump.

some difference here Hillary has not and probably will not be indicted
Let alone be convicted

#103:

BITE him, 05!
BITE HIM WHERE IT HURTS!
Not, mind you, that I am inciting violence…
Don’t you think that, when someone repeatedly AGREES with you, that it’s OK to call them as your “SWEETHEART”?
Because…

#105:

“They’re here to turn this country into another Mexico”

Or just maybe they’re here to take back the part of Mexico that WE took from them and turned into an insane asylum we call “TEXAS”?

@John:

Hastret had at least one victim that was 14 years old
In the vernacular that would fit the criteria for acpedophile

You are up on your definitions about the same as you are on solar power. Pedophilia is defined as with pre-pubescent children. That means before puberty. in girls that’s usually in the 9-10-11 range and boys about 10. Very few high school girls or boys are pre-pubescent.

If you’re going to quote in the ‘vernacular’ then you should find out what the vernacular is.

#110:

“What of the land they TOOK from the Aztecs when they slaughtered them?”

Oops! Are you arguing that two wrongs make a right?

Besides, I think that you can pin the slaughter of the Aztecs on the Spaniards, not the Mexicans.

As for Texas and California (and New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and Oregon), Mexicans were there first. Like much of the Indian lands we took by SUPERIOR FORCE, we overwhelmed Mexico and took what we wanted. The Mexican-American War wasn’t fought over a couple of Taco Bell franchises. From our perspective, Polk did us a great favor, but surely you can appreciate that Mexicans might see it differently…

@DrJohn: @DrJohn: It’s hard to capture your point when you’re all over the place. You hate illegal immigrants from Mexico. Got it. And Hillary. Got that too. And the left. Understood.

And you think Trump, who has utilized illegal immigrants to make him fortunes will now get rid of them, or, uh, something. And because you hate the left and Hillary and Mexicans, well, that means that all the violence is a product of them and Trump is the diplomat that’s here to put a halt to that. Or again, something.

As mentioned earlier, Trump supporters are illogical people to try to have an intelligent conversation with.

@DrJohn:

They’re not here to assimilate and become Americans

You’re correct. They are here because people like Trump has enjoyed their cheap labor and that they can hide them from the regulations associated with Americans citizens.

@George Wells:From 78 you said:

It would seem that Hastert IS a homosexual, but what he did to those boys isn’t simply “homosexuality,” it is “child homosexual abuse,” since you are obsessed with nomenclature all of a sudden.

And then in 95 you said:

And you wouldn’t likely hear that, would you, since homosexuality isn’t a CRIME here in America.

I said it wasn’t pedophilia, that it was homosexuality. You said it was homosexuality. now you’re trying to say it wasn’t homosexuality. Did they help you out when 911 responded?

If I were to want to make a point, it would be that what Hastert did is what homosexuals do. If they get an opportunity to seduce young boys just into puberty, they are delighted. There are ‘far’ too many cases of that happening for it to be an anomaly. If you did not have sex, when you were younger, with a boy in his early teens, I’d say you were the exception for homosexuals. As my neighborhood queer, affectionately known as Quesy, used to say, the younger the better.

@Redteam: in common American English he would be called a pedophile
I suppose for most having him described as a hebephile would at best be confusing
But if course if you did wantbtobdefend him you woukd seek to confuse
But in any case RedTeam you and the GOP own him and put him 2 heart beats away from the POTUS
Wouldn’t that have been great the first POTUS arrested for taping underage boys while he was a wrestling coach
At least one of his victims later committed suicide in his early 20s
But hey !! Your right not technically a pedophile so ……… I guess you are a-ok with him

@retire05:

OK, so quote the U.S. Constitution precisely and show where the word two is.

I’ll assume you missed this:

Actually, it does. That is all inclusive in ‘natural born’.

@John:

in common American English he would be called a pedophile

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

For goodness sakes John, you’re actually going to try to change the definition of pedophile?

But in any case RedTeam you and the GOP own him and put him 2 heart beats away from the POTUS

You have no problem saying that with Obozo in the White House? And he’s not even two steps away from the white house.

first POTUS arrested for taping underage boys

Oh my God, he was ‘taping’ some boys… is that a new description of sexual crimes?

@Ajay42302:

Trump has repeatedly urged his supporters to “knock the crap out of them”, encouraged “punch them in the face” and has even offered to pay the legal expenses for his thugs that do.

This, as Dr. John pointed out and as I accurately tried to explain to you (you, who deems others “illogical”) was in response to the violent disruptions of his events. Don’t like violence? Don’t provoke it.

Speaking of provoking and promoting violence, why are you not directing your phony rage at your liberal media, Bernie, Hillary and the rest of the mindless liberal mouthpieces? After all, it is they that have completely mischaracterized Trump’s totally legitimate and correct stance on illegal immigrants as being directed at ALL immigrants and Mexicans? Why are you not upset about the left wing lies that is fueling the violent demonstrations?

Because the ends justifies the means, don’t they, AJ? Lies and violence are but tools in the liberal kit to gain and maintain power and you are totally down with it.

I applaud Trump encouraging anyone that is able and willing to fight back, tooth and nail, against your leftist fascism. As Obama said, if they bring a knife, his folks will bring a gun. So, if they bring a gun, we’ll have a cannon.

Let’s play.

Oh, and now how about substantiating your stupid-ass claim that Trump used illegal immigrants to amass his fortune. And don’t give more of your, “well, if you don’t know, I can’t tell you” crap, either.

@George Wells: Oh, you mean after Mexico attacked the US and provoked a war and then we PAID them for the territory we captured?

@retire05:

And I am tired of these “birthers” who refuse to admit they are wrong simply because they are too dishonest to admit they support the carnival barker known as Donald Trump.

If I run across any of those people I’ll be sure to pass on your comments and let them know it is causing you to be sick. So far I don’t know any birthers that don’t support Hillary.

If his mother actually retained her US citizenship, and did not in fact file to be naturalized as a Canadian citizen, then Yes, Cruz is a US citizen

Now someone is trying to change the discussion back to whether or not he is a US citizen, not a ‘natural born’ US citizen.
It has not been proven that the necessary paperwork to ensure that Cruz is an American citizen was ever filed in the US. No birth is ‘official’ until the proper documentation has been concluded. No proof any was ever filed for Cruz, just to make him a naturalized US citizen. We do know that Cruz was both with Canadian citizenship and Canada does not recognize dual citizenship. He was also born as a Cuban citizen, even tho I haven’t heard of any proof that they filed the necessary paperwork for that either.

they support the carnival barker

I never heard that Trump worked as a carnival barker. Was that back in his younger days? Do you know which midway shows he was with and which acts he barked for? That might be some good trivia information.

Heidi Cruz was a member of the CFR for 5 years, it’s surprising that she was only able to contribute one paragraph in that time.

@John:

will not be indicted
Let alone be convicted

You’re right John, the Obama admin does not agree with enforcing laws against Dimocrat criminals

If you think Trump will deport anyone you’ve drank the kool aid.

@George Wells:

Or just maybe they’re here to take back the part of Mexico that WE took from them

I think you should review your history, George.

@Ajay42302: You are one confused feller.

So much talk of hate and anger the words have lost meaning. No we dont hate the illegal aliens we just cannot afford them, no we dont hate the left we are tired of the non solutions, tried them they do not work in fact they made things worse. Angry at the GOP nope disappointed that they made promises they had no intention of keeping.
Trump made a huge mistake by agreeing with those that stated it was anger that fueled his rise, it wasn’t anger it was who has a simple easy to understand solution. So now they describe his following as grumpy old white men of low information.
Everybody and his cousin has tried to analyze the rise of Trump, whos fault is it, where does his message resonate. So far its just Blah Blah Blah. The news agencies chase him for ratings, not because they believe he would make a great statesman, a smaller government ect.

@Redteam:

It has not been proven that the necessary paperwork to ensure that Cruz is an American citizen was ever filed in the US. No birth is ‘official’ until the proper documentation has been concluded. No proof any was ever filed for Cruz, just to make him a naturalized US citizen.

No paperwork required. Cruz was (as determined by a judge) a NBC by the virtue of his mother’s U.S. citizenship when he was born, just as Mitt Romney’s father was although born in Mexico.

We do know that Cruz was both with Canadian citizenship and Canada does not recognize dual citizenship.

What? Are you drunk? Canada most certainly allows dual citizenship.

“Since there can be several ways to acquire a given country’s citizenship, it is possible for someone to be considered a citizen under the laws of two (or more) countries at the same time. This is what is meant by “dual” (or “multiple”) citizenship.

For example, my son has been a dual citizen of both the US and Canada from the day he was born. He is a citizen of the US, because his parents are both US citizens who fulfilled the US’s legal requirement of residency in the US prior to his birth. And he is also a citizen of Canada, because he was born in Canada and neither my wife nor myself were in the country as foreign diplomats. I, too, am a dual citizen of both the US and Canada — a citizen of the US because I was born in the US, and a citizen of Canada because I went through the Canadian naturalization process.”

https://www.uscitizenship.info/dual_citizen.htm

Stop showing how ill informed you are, Redteam, I am embarrassed for you. I think you have been sipping way too much Trump vodka.

@Redteam:

Heidi Cruz was a member of the CFR for 5 years, it’s surprising that she was only able to contribute one paragraph in that time.

So now you’re going to slam Heidy Cruz who is at least respectable enough to keep her clothes on?

How about a link to prove your claim about her being a member “Fellow” of the CFR for years?

#118:
“You mean the Spaniards who are now Mexicans?”

No. I mean the Spaniards who conquered Mexico – a name that came from the indigenous people in the region, not from Spain. The Spaniards were looking for gold – follow the history for yourself. But if you follow it all the way to the present, you’ll find that there is precious little love lost between the native Mexican people who represent the lion’s share of the current Mexican population and the “Spanish-Mexican” or “Castilian-Mexican” people who remain in the country as remnants of Spanish colonialism. You confuse the two at the peril of appearing ignorant. The incredible disarray in Mexico that enabled the United States to more or less walk away with half of the land Mexico had a prior claim to was Spain’s fault, not Mexico’s, Spain having thrown the population into civil war with its exploitive mis-management of the country..

@Redteam:please note that none of the FBI agents nor anyone else who has investigated get has quit in protest over tha lack of prosecution

The GOP owns Trump
And he will lose and take thecsenate with him

@DrJohn: I’m no Hillary fan by any stretch. I’m as disappointed of this race as anyone.

We could pound sand all day but that doesn’t change the cold hard reality that we are either going to vote for Trump or Hillary or not at all (or write in our own which is akin to not voting at all).

Trump is an egotistical, racist, sexist, lying, misogynist, self-centered, xenophobe who mismanaged his inheritance while profiteering of the backs of the people he’s exploited, having Chinese factories make the shirts and ties he sells rather than having Americans do it, having foreign labor run his motels rather than pay Americans, living a life a scam after scam. How about a Trump University diploma to go with those Trump steaks?

There’s just no way on God’s green earth that I’ll cast a vote for this spoiled thug to have the keys to our nuclear arsenal or nominate a supreme court justice.

@kitt:

it wasn’t anger it was who has a simple easy to understand solution

Trump has no solutions, only blatant lies. He’s not going to build a wall which wouldn’t do any good anyway. To paraphrase DR. John, let’s stop the bullshit. Mexico IS NOT going to pay for a wall. They are not going to do it. We ARE NOT going to deport some 13 or however many Mexicans. We’re not. We don’t have the resources or the capability so it’s just flat bullshit. And even if we did, the economy would collapses. And if we did, who or where is this arbitrary panel that’s going to decide to let them back in? And what friggin sense does that make anyway.

Trump cannot ban a religion? He cannot scrap the Geneva convention and torture at will.. He cannot end Obamacare with a swoop of a pen and he has no plan in place for a replacement. He’s a lying thug that’s out for no one other than himself and has no concern of how many people he steps on.

If you live in one of the 12 battleground states maybe you do have to vote D or R
But in any o the other states by all means write in your real choice

@John: Latest poll out today Trump 41 Clinton 39

@Ajay42302: I know that, Trump as a statesman is as close as this being Rod Stewart, https://youtu.be/YUD_aeVi_bY now force yourself to watch the whole thing!
Carson is us, witnessing the bizzaro Trump

@John:

please note that none of the FBI agents nor anyone else who has investigated get has quit

and take thecsenate with him

John is English your 2nd language?

@kitt: I’ll pass but thanks for the offer.

Sorry about the English being sub par
I am not home I work for a living I am doing this sometimes driving sometimes tendons a mason
That poll showing Trump ahead??? Who did that pill? How accurate have they been in the past ?
Which way do their results tilt ?left/right?
Has ANY other pollster had similar ?
How did that pollster do in the 2012 or 2008 elections?
Also please note that Rasmussen has 20% as “undecided” no other pollster has even half that many as undecided between Trump and Clinton
Any idea how that 20% will break??

English is first language
Unlike many who are posting here I actually have a job and am trying to post when/where/how I can

That is also why you will see me posting well before 7 am

@Ajay42302: lol coward honest the longer you watch the more bizzaro it gets

@kitt:

…true Illinois and NY tossed out the case. Both based ruling on 1790 law…The 2 cases were not dismissed.

“Dismissed”, “Tossed out”, mean pretty much the same as far as rulings go.

Trying the only through a male citizen argument is not going to fly.

I agree it shouldn’t, but that is generally how nation of origin citizenship was awarded when Cruz was born and up to the 1970’s.

@retire05:

Ted Cruz’ mother a) never applied for Canadian citizenship and b) had not yet met the statutory residency requirements that would have allowed her to do so, all according to the Canadian government.

Again, Ted Cruz has a legal argument to claim he is a citizen of the US or Cuba or Canada none of which recognizes dual citizenship. The problem is he decided to run for President (while leaving which nation he was going to decide he was going to be from up in the air). The entire purpose of requiring a presidential candidate be a ‘Natural Born Citizen” is specifically to ensure that that person can not hold dual citizenship (and thus a double allegiance,) that might create conflict of interests over which nation they will represent in their decisions.

The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

Because Cruz could make claim to citizenship of either of these three nations, this “clear as mud” situation creates a huge problem for him in the general election.

But as the CRS pointed out in its report, the 1790 law was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which changed the language from “natural born citizens” to just “citizens.”

So there is still some lingering uncertainty about Cruz’s eligibility. That’s because the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the meaning of “natural born citizen,” which the Constitution doesn’t define.

More Scholars Say Ted Cruz Can’t Be President

A growing number of constitutional law scholars are arguing that Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada makes him ineligible to become U.S. president. Their argument could prove a thorn in the side of the senator, who is a zealous originalist on most constitutional questions—with what seems like a notable exception.

The issue has moved to the center of the presidential campaign, with Cruz’s rise in the polls and Donald Trump claiming that Cruz needs to prove he’s eligible to run by getting a declaratory judgment in federal court.

(Snip)

But it’s hardly unanimous. An increasing number of high-profile constitutional law professors, including one of Cruz’s own professors from Harvard Law School, have in recent days argued publicly that Cruz’s birth disqualifies him.

“[I]t’s all in how you read the Constitution,” wrote Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional and international law at Fordham University, in an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times Sunday:

There are three leading theories of how to interpret the Constitution today. One is textualism: The Constitution means what its words say. The historical context of the words is important when a modern plain meaning is not self-evident. A second theory, adopted by many liberals, relies on a “living Constitution”: the Constitution means what is most consistent with fundamental constitutional values as applied to present circumstances. The third theory, championed by many leading conservatives, is originalism: The Constitution means what ordinary people would have understood it to mean at the time it was ratified, in 1788.

According to Lee, two legal theories of citizenship were popular at the time the Constitution was ratified: jus soli (Latin for “law of the land), which held that a child’s citizenship flowed from the actual, physical place of his birth, and jus sanguinis (“law of the blood”), which held that parents passed their citizenship to their children. However, Lee argues, at the time the Constitution was ratified, jus sanguinis applied only to patrilineal descent.

“However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband’s—much rarer then than today—could not be a ‘natural born Citizen’ of the mother’s country. That idea wasn’t even considered until 1844 in Victorian England.”

Mary Brigid McManamon, a constitutional law professor at Widener University, made a similar argument in The Washington Post Tuesday. “In this election cycle, numerous pundits have declared that Cruz is eligible to be president,” she writes. “They rely on a supposed consensus among legal experts. This notion appears to emanate largely from a recent comment in the Harvard Law Review Forum by former Solicitors General Neal Katyal and Paul Clement. In trying to put the question of who is a natural-born citizen to rest, however, the authors misunderstand, misapply and ignore the relevant law.”

The law Katyal and Clement are ignoring, McManamon argues, is 18th-century English common law, which the Supreme Court has said is a necessary lens for understanding the founders’ understanding of the Constitution—a fact that Katyal, Clement and McManamon agree on. English common law was “unequivocal” on the subject, McManamon says: “Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory.” Katyal and Clement, rather than relying on common law, turn for their interpretation to a trio of 18th-century British statutes that were “a revolutionary departure” from the common law, McManamon argues.

Now a former teacher of Cruz’s says he thinks the senator isn’t eligible to run for president. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard who taught both Cruz and President Barack Obama, wrote about the subject in an op-ed published Monday in The Boston Globe.

“People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be,” Tribe writes. “But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an ‘originalist,’ one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen. Even having two U.S. parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”

Tribe later called Cruz a “fair-weather originalist” on CNN, saying the senator’s philosophy is “antiquated…but it turns out Ted Cruz drops that when it doesn’t serve his purpose.”

“We know from the McCain lawsuits, courts don’t want to touch this,” said Sarah Duggin, a professor of law at Catholic University who has researched this issue extensively. “It very well may be that the courts would refuse to go near this. There are so many issues.”

Partly, Duggin said, citizens who triggered the lawsuits in the past don’t have standing to sue.

“In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling — or a constitutional amendment — the parameters of the clause remain uncertain,” she wrote.

She told us in 2008 that the question of natural born citizenship is “one of the most deceptively simple, complex issues.”

“Unfortunately, we cannot say for sure without either a definitive Supreme Court ruling, or an amendment to clarify the Constitution.”

Which clearly indicates as I have stated, that the Supreme Court only can rule on whether Ted Cruz meets the qualification.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists both the right to leave any country, including one’s own (Article 13(2)) and the right to change one’s nationality (Article 15(2)), which implicitly recognizes the right to renounce citizenship.

Ted Cruz could have easily removed the question of his eligibility by filing the paperwork to legally renounce his claims to Cuban or Canadian citizenship. Why he (a constitutional lawyer,) didn’t do this very simple process is beyond me, but it could be possible that he wants to retain his triple-citizenship.

I put it out there for discussion:

Why do you think it is that Ted Cruz insists on retaining his triple-citizenship and with that his triple-allegiances, when he could have easily renounced his claims to Cuban and Canadian citizenship?

@retire05:

Mitt Romney’s father was although born in Mexico.

LOL, Romney had a mother and father that were US citizens, not the same situation.
When a US citizen is born in a foreign country, they are required to file for a US birth certificate.
travel.state.gov > Passports & International Travel > While Abroad > Life Events & Vital Records > Birth Abroad

Print Email

Birth of U.S. Citizens Abroad

A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.

What? Are you drunk? Canada most certainly allows dual citizenship.

Drunk? you do realize we’re talking about 1970 when Teddy was born. Canada started allowing dual citizenship in 1977. But let’s go with your point and assume he was, in fact, born as a citizen of 3 countries at birth. Can it be said he is a ‘natural born’ citizen of all 3 of those countries? If you didn’t come up with a ‘NO’ then your answer is incorrect, whether drunk is an excuse, I’ll leave to you.

Stop showing how ill informed you are, Redteam, I am embarrassed for you. I think you have been sipping way too much Trump vodka.

Don’t believe I’ve been wrong on any points yet. Kinda strange you arguing someone is a dual citizen and natural born for two of them. Kinda voids the meaning of ‘natural born’ doesn’t it.? I don’t drink Vodka. Trump or other.

So now you’re going to slam Heidy Cruz who is at least respectable enough to keep her clothes on?

Are you implying that being a model is not an honorable profession?
Don’t have time to look up that link right now, but she joined in 2007 as a term member and resigned in 2011 when ted decided to run for Senator. There are several links that discuss her membership.

@Ditto: He has renounced his Canadian citizenship.
Allegiance a 4 year old, the only allegiance they have is to a favorite blanket or teddy bear. Something that happens when you are a toddler may seem to be important or even come to mind.
A professor of Cruz says he is very qualified to be president.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/09/dershowitz-tex-cruz-one-of-harvard-laws-s

@kitt:

Correction: Ted “renounced his Canadian citizanship” on television. You certainly are not naive enough to think that video statement has any legal standing. I’ll also note that he did not “renounce” his Cuban citizenship.

FYI your link doesn’t work. Nor does an opinion of one of Cruz’ professors hold any legal standing.

Sorry but no dice. Only the Supreme Court can rule whether Cruz meets the required criteria.

@Ditto: No the supreme court can not rule it must be congress, if a law is unclear then Congress must put forth an amendment to the Constitution.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/03/23/liberal-prof-dershowitz-cruz-char

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/politics/ted-cruz-canada-citizenship/index.html

Cuba DOES NOT recognize DUAL CITIZENSHIP of any kind.

@kitt:

No the supreme court can not rule it must be congress,

Not true at all. Only the supreme court has the power to give a ruling on a law. If congress does not like the ruling, then they can amend the law. If it is a constitutional issue, Congress must pass an amendment and forward it to the states for approval, or not.

@Redteam: As long as they are not creating a Law only interpreting the meaning thereof.