General Discussion

applegrove

(131,345 posts)

9. Exactly.

Reply to rusty quoin (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:21 AM

Jan 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's why the firestorm over Ted Cruz's Canadian birth is nothing like the Obama 'birther' controve [View all] applegrove Jan 2016 OP

Cruz knew there would be a question so he got out ahead of it. Obama had no way of knowing applegrove Jan 2016 #1

Exactly what you said, beveeheart Jan 2016 #53

Yes which may be why underthematrix Jan 2016 #2

Good point. n/t earthside Jan 2016 #4

That is not true. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #7

This registration has been in effect since 1959. underthematrix Jan 2016 #10

No, registration with SS was reinstated in the summer of 1980. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #11

Correct. murielm99 Jan 2016 #12

There has not been a draft in the US since 1973 underthematrix Jan 2016 #17

You need to go back and read my posts. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #19

yes. Some males are exempt underthematrix Jan 2016 #20

Yes, some were exempt from registering with Selectivr Service. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #21

I understand your brother and all males who were born the same year did not have to register with underthematrix Jan 2016 #24

I think it was all males who were in about a seven year period. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #27

All males born in 1957, 1958 and 1959 underthematrix Jan 2016 #34

I was not confused. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #38

I was not saying you were confused. I was saying the way the historical information was underthematrix Jan 2016 #43

I was born in the very early 60's Tab Jan 2016 #72

not true. no requirement for selective service reg for many years after 'nam. KG Jan 2016 #22

Cruz is not eligible to run for Prez Iliyah Jan 2016 #3

You seem awfully certain of that onenote Jan 2016 #5

Yep underthematrix Jan 2016 #6

I think the jury is out on that one. murielm99 Jan 2016 #13

I'm sure that he is. anigbrowl Jan 2016 #35

Getting a passport TeddyR Jan 2016 #57

In brief anigbrowl Jan 2016 #64

I agree TeddyR Jan 2016 #66

It is interesting anigbrowl Jan 2016 #69

Sure he is. This narrative is stupid. Bonx Jan 2016 #41

I think the difference is Democrats want to debate policy. rusty quoin Jan 2016 #8

Exactly. applegrove Jan 2016 #9

If his mom became a Canadian citizen before he was born, then ecstatic Jan 2016 #14

If his mother renounced her US citizenship prior to become Canadian, pnwmom Jan 2016 #15

Not only that, but wouldn't he need to resign from the Senate? ecstatic Jan 2016 #18

Maybe you could link to those "reports". former9thward Jan 2016 #50

She would have had to in order to be a registered voter, and her name is pnwmom Jan 2016 #52

Both countries allow dual citizenship former9thward Jan 2016 #62

He's not brown. KentuckyWoman Jan 2016 #16

Question: What happens if in October it's ruled he's ineligible? Reter Jan 2016 #23

Yep Liberal_in_LA Jan 2016 #25

Why should any US citizen not be eligible to serve as president, though? frizzled Jan 2016 #26

When the U.S. Constitution was being Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #28

But they are second class. They don't have identical rights to natural born Americans. frizzled Jan 2016 #32

Because they're all dead. Snobblevitch Jan 2016 #33

Actually, I believe the provision was aimed directly at Alexander Hamilton KamaAina Jan 2016 #45

There appears to be evidence that his mother voted in the 1974 Canadian elections. Zen Democrat Jan 2016 #29

And, if she did, Cruz is now neither American NOR Canadian. beac Jan 2016 #30

Incorrect. There is nothing that prevents his Mother COLGATE4 Jan 2016 #31

Agree. Even if she voted fraudulently, not having Hortensis Jan 2016 #54

It wouldn't. You are absolutely correct. At the most COLGATE4 Jan 2016 #56

I expect you're right -- detached view infinitely desirable. Hortensis Jan 2016 #68

No, no, and no anigbrowl Jan 2016 #37

Thanks for good info, Anigbrowl. Hortensis Jan 2016 #55

Not true. former9thward Jan 2016 #51

Because the people who drafted the Constitution TeddyR Jan 2016 #59

Actually it's worse loyalsister Jan 2016 #36

But Constitutional Scholar Laurence Tribe Says The Issue is Still Unsettled 403Forbidden Jan 2016 #39

"The scholar cited by Donald Trump" loyalsister Jan 2016 #40

Tribe is a pretty damn big deal in constitutional law. Goblinmonger Jan 2016 #44

Irrelevant loyalsister Jan 2016 #46

Why is asking the question about the definition of "natural born citiszen" necessarily exploitative? 403Forbidden Jan 2016 #47

It's the "firestorm" that is exploitive loyalsister Jan 2016 #48

That's a ridiculous position TeddyR Jan 2016 #61

Questioning Cruz's Eligibility Is Not Birtherism 403Forbidden Jan 2016 #70

This message was self-deleted by its author loyalsister Jan 2016 #48

I think this whole argument in relation to Cruz is stupid Goblinmonger Jan 2016 #58

He is indeed, which is why I have his work at arm's reach anigbrowl Jan 2016 #67

I have zippadeedodah problems truebluegreen Jan 2016 #60

Thank you. This is a bullshit issue. His mother was a US citizen & never renounced her citizenship Bucky Jan 2016 #71

Now, should Democrats support "birtherism" against Cruz, to make sure Trump gets in? frizzled Jan 2016 #42

I'd rather we face Cruz than Trump. nt ecstatic Jan 2016 #63

The real issue is the uncertainty. Repubs have a tradition of playing on that. immoderate Jan 2016 #65