Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2016gopprimary; arizona; awjeez; birtherbs; california; canada; carlcameron; congress; cowabunga; cruz2016; debatingbirthers; fff; foxisnotcredible; japan; mccain; mexico; naturalborncitizen; newmexico; obama; teaparty; tedcruz; tedcruziseligible; texas; thisspaceforrent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 1,551-1,578 next last
To: HawkHogan
You’re right. I definitely see the plausibility of someone living in China his whole life after being born in one of those “California maternity hotels”, then moving to the United States and immediately running for President.

Now i'm beginning to think you are obtuse. The point isn't that they would, it's that they legally CAN! Such a thing is plausible *IF* you accept your theory. If you understand what is a Gedanken Experiment, then you can comprehend what I am saying. If you don't, then you are not ready to argue with me.

601 posted on 03/09/2013 5:10:39 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
No, you are mocked for making up your mind before you heard both sides of the conversation. You SHOULD be mocked for that.

Believe me, I've heard everything you've had to say on this. I've read your stuff and the stuff written by just about everyone else out there. I've weighed the arguments on both sides. And yours fall flat, again and again.

And the odd thing is, no matter how many times you're shown the falsehoods and flaws, you simply won't give up your falsehood. One can quote a very strong and crystal clear authority like Rawle, who was friends both with George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and do you listen? No. Instead, you insult this friend of Washington and Franklin by falsely accusing him of having supported the British during the war.

By clinging with both fists to false doctrine regarding the Constitution, so hard that you will turn on and insult early American experts like Rawle, you are an enemy not only of William Rawle, but also of his friends George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and of the Constitution they gave us.

602 posted on 03/09/2013 5:11:46 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
It’s strange. You mock the Supreme Court by mentioning how a particular Court ruled that blacks were property. Then you precede to cite one of the most liberal Courts in history, the same court that brought us Roe V Wade, to make your point.

Again, you prove my point. (That the courts are not infallible.) You apparently don't realize that you have been wrangled into a trap. Either the courts are always right. (You lose, Rogers v Bellei) or the courts are sometimes wrong. (You Lose, Dred Scott v Sanford.)

I argue that the courts are often wrong, and that we should not rely on the opinions of the courts as being sacrosanct.

Oh, by the way, alleging the court must be wrong because of it's makeup is an "ad hominem." Look it up.

603 posted on 03/09/2013 5:17:08 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Running away, are you?

From YOU? Not even on my worst day.

-----

You will still go on believing that the Constitution talks about Vattel even though I have darn good evidence that it doesn't.

You have 'shown' NOTHING. You have presented no EVIDENCE.

I, however have shown offical government records to support MY position.

I have scrolled back through your posts. All YOU have done is try to brow-beat everyone into agreement using nothing more substantial than your OWN WORDS.

-----

After all, that's exactly what you're saying, isn't it?

Oh, you do love trying to put words in people's mouths, don't you there, champ.

The only people who have doubts about where I stand are the ones who deal mainly in vagaries in the first place.

Like you.

604 posted on 03/09/2013 5:19:03 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog
LOL! You were reading my mind! (See my comment #528, right before yours).

Cheers!

Great minds think alike! I'm thinking that even some of the smarter anti-birthers will have a real difficulty explaining away Rogers v Bellei. It pretty much destroys their argument for Cruz.

Not that I want to, I think he would make a far better President than the current occupant.

605 posted on 03/09/2013 5:20:09 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Your patronizing tone is offensive, and if you’ve such great sources that you’ve read on the subject, I’d think you’d give me a better one than you did.


606 posted on 03/09/2013 5:20:21 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest
So, if you insist that we did indeed operate under ENGLISH common law for many many years, please cite the sources which support this. Please tell us when we finally did fully cast off the laws of England to live under the US law?

A lot of these ya-hoos don't understand that after the Revolution, there were many thousands of people born in the United States after 1776 that considered themselves British Subjects. So did both the British Government, AND the US Government.

"Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts."
-- Henry Rosovsky

607 posted on 03/09/2013 5:23:07 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
And what kind of conservative are you to think that the Supreme court is the Final word on anything?

Whether you agree or disagree with the SCOTUS decisions is beside the point. What they decide is the law of the land.

The larger point I was making is that even though a good many people disagree with the SCOTUS decisions on abortion, or ACA, or Kelo, or whatever, there are birthers who will not accept a SCOTUS decision regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" if it does not fit their viewpoint.

608 posted on 03/09/2013 5:25:05 PM PST by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
No, the reason nobody "wants to touch the issue" is that it has no basis in history or law. It's that simple.

No. Basis. In. History. Or. Law.

Period.

You are like the Election officials under Saddam Hussein. Nobody ever votes for the opposition. It's not true, but you keep saying it. There is plenty of evidence in both History and Law, but you just claimed there was none.

All anyone has to do to make you look like a liar and a fool is to provide one. The Thread above has already done so. A smarter argument would have been to claim that the BULK of evidence is on your side. (It isn't, but it is a more plausible claim.) To say there is NO evidence against you is just stupid.

But if you were smart, you wouldn't be arguing so strongly for the wrong side.

609 posted on 03/09/2013 5:27:25 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
I don't agree with your chart, and don't agree that it represents the Founding Generation's understanding of the term, Natural Born Citizen. Your chart shows a weak and imperfect form of citizenship -- one which the Framers would not have held up as the unimpeachable standard for the office of President.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with the chart or not. It is an accurate representation of what "natural born citizen" does and does not mean, as stated by every single real authority in the entire history of the United States.

Use the keyword, "NBC", and read the multitudes of threads posted here, which back up my assertion.

I've read those threads, and a lot more besides.

Here is a revised version of the chart, with a comment regarding Vattel at the bottom:


610 posted on 03/09/2013 5:27:50 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: highball
Whether they would have approved of it or not is completely irrelevant. They didn't put anything in the Constitution to prevent it.

Do you know see how your one erroneous assumption is all that supports your other erroneous assumption? Of COURSE they put something into the constitution to prevent it!! You just don't accept the meaning they intended when they put it in there. I can't even give you a case of an obvious absurdity to get you to see how absurd is your theory!

611 posted on 03/09/2013 5:30:56 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
This was hardly a case about US citizenship...indeed:

Right. It was a case about DOMICILE, which is what Vattel was quoted for, and the quoted version of Vattel didn't even say "natural born citizens."

All of this has been extensively debunked before, of course. Probably by you. In any event, thanks for jumping in on it again.

612 posted on 03/09/2013 5:30:57 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
You have 'shown' NOTHING. You have presented no EVIDENCE.

Do I have your agreement that if those six points I made are correct, then it only makes sense that the references in the Constitution are not to Vattel, but to the other author I mention?

It's really not that hard. It seems a compelling case to me. Does it not seem a compelling case to you?

Do I need to go over those six points again?

It seems to me that this should be very, very easy to agree to. And yet you seem to refuse. Why?

613 posted on 03/09/2013 5:35:04 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

As soon as you agree that you are committed to the evidence, rather than committed to necessarily clinging to what you so desperately seem to want to believe, then I will bring forth that evidence.


614 posted on 03/09/2013 5:35:55 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Incorrect. It had everything to do with the natural born definition.

Then why did it not say so? Were they afraid of using too much ink by adding the words "Natural born" to the word "Citizen"?

Same thing with Wong Kim Ark. Was it just too much effort to write two more words "natural born" next to the word "citizen"?

You can either believe that they left out the words "natural born" in both the 14th amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision because they were lazy or stupid, or perhaps because they INTENDED THAT THOSE WORDS NOT BE IN THERE!!!!!!

Add to that the Waite Court in Minor v Happersett saying explicitly that "The constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens" all the while discussing the 14th amendment, and perhaps the picture starts to come into focus?

Apparently the 1875 Waite court couldn't find "natural born" in the 14th amendment anywhere. I'm surprised others can.

615 posted on 03/09/2013 5:36:39 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Your patronizing tone is offensive, and if you’ve such great sources that you’ve read on the subject, I’d think you’d give me a better one than you did.

Which source was that? I refer to a bunch of different sources.

616 posted on 03/09/2013 5:37:15 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

You’re welcome. I fell for it for the longest time until someone put me wise to it.


617 posted on 03/09/2013 5:37:24 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
There was no US common law in 1787 which would define the meaning of legal terms as understood in 1787. It was ENGLISH common law that formed the language of the law.

And wouldn't you know the English Common Law book which defined "natural born subject" used the Vattel Definition?

This was from John Adam's own personal copy of English law, by the way.

618 posted on 03/09/2013 5:39:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
A lot of these ya-hoos don't understand that after the Revolution, there were many thousands of people born in the United States after 1776 that considered themselves British Subjects. So did both the British Government, AND the US Government.

That might be true immediately after the Declaration, but not for much longer than that.

Although I'm not sure what your point is here.

"Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts." -- Henry Rosovsky

That's the best thing you've said.

619 posted on 03/09/2013 5:39:59 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Birthers who claim otherwise are spitting in the face of William Rawle and the Founders and Framers that he was friends with. And it is time that real Patriots stopped tolerating this nonsense.

There's that totalitarian impulse from Jeffy boy again. Geeze, free speech dude. Chill.

620 posted on 03/09/2013 5:41:11 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You are like the Election officials under Saddam Hussein. Nobody ever votes for the opposition. It's not true, but you keep saying it. There is plenty of evidence in both History and Law, but you just claimed there was none.

All anyone has to do to make you look like a liar and a fool is to provide one. The Thread above has already done so. A smarter argument would have been to claim that the BULK of evidence is on your side. (It isn't, but it is a more plausible claim.) To say there is NO evidence against you is just stupid.

I'm not claiming there is not a single figure in history who has made your argument. There are a few. But they are VERY, VERY few, their arguments are weak, they generally failed to carry the point, and they are completely insignificant compared with the entire vast weight of history and law.

621 posted on 03/09/2013 5:42:55 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Article VI, US Constitution

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article I, Section 8

(Congress shall have the power)...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Article II, Section 1

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


622 posted on 03/09/2013 5:42:57 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: All
Well, Here's what Congress will look towards when confronted with a child born abroad who is running for President: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30527.pdf

I. Presidential Candidates

Qualifications for the Office of President

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years[1]. Most constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement[2]. Under the 22nd Amendment, no one may serve more than two full terms, although a Vice President who succeeds to the Presidency and serves less than two full years of the prior incumbent’s term may seek election to two additional terms.

(We have to go to footnote #2 to see the exceptions for children born outside the continental U.S.):

[2] Citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as “natural born” citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President, provided they meet qualifications of age and 14 years residence within the United States. [...] [U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Insular Areas and Their Political Development, by Andorra Bruno and Garrine P. Laney, CRS Report 96-578GOV (Washington: Jun. 17, 1996), pp. 9, 21, 33].

Basically, what that footnote is saying is that children born in those aforementioned territories, just like children in the States, are exempt from having to have parents that are natural born citizens in order to be the Prez.

Obviously, he wasn't born in a territory specified in footnote 2, and so, he doesn't get an exemption from the "Natural Born citizen parents" requirement.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to one U.S. citizen parent (mother) [Natural Born, I don't know] and one non-US citizen (father)[Natural Born, obviously NO WAY!].

So, Congress's own report (written in 2000) on Presidential Elections appears to disqualify Ted Cruz since the requirement for Natural Born parents [plural]--note it also says "citizens" [again, plural]--when dealing with a child born abroad, has not been met according to this Congressional report.

I will grant you that it could be just a grammar usage issue, but I've even seen this "parents" [plural] usage in legal documents even when discussing a single child born abroad.

Just my 2 bits. You can take it or leave it. I don't really have a horse in this race--except the U.S.A.

P.S. - If anyone has an updated copy of this Congressional Report, please leave me a link. I'd appreciate it.

BTW - How many here would be defending Obama's Natural Born status so vehemently, and with such fervor, if he HAD been born in Kenya???


623 posted on 03/09/2013 5:43:13 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Well, you are making two arguments.

First, Rubio is not a natural born citizen because his parents did have American citizenship at the time of his birth IN THE UNITED STATES.

Second, Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen because his mother, an American citizen, married a non-citizen, and temporarily moved to Canada, where Ted was born.

You are drawing comparisons to non-American citizens, who move to the United States for a few months before their child’s birth, have they baby in the US, then move back to their home country.

If you don’t see a distinction, I don’t know what to tell you.

Rubio lived the rest of his life in the United States, and Cruz moved back at the age of four.

You cite a case, from the Roe V Wade court, as proof, when the case doesn’t even discuss the issue of natural born citizen.

And it’s not really an ad-hominem court. That was one of the most destructive Supreme Courts in history. That’s pretty factual, if you hold conservative beliefs.

This argument about English common law is quite silly too. In my young law school career, I’ve encountered numerous cases where an American court cites to a English court in delivering its opinion.

Some of you act like we completely severed from England in every aspect.


624 posted on 03/09/2013 5:43:42 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
The Vattel claim is ABSOLUTE, FLAT-OUT NONSENSE. It's simply false. There is no evidence to support it.

There's that claim again. Reminds me of Clinton's "I did NOT have sex with that woman."

I no longer have time to fool with this. I will drub you later.

625 posted on 03/09/2013 5:44:09 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Wrong.

Gosh. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Have you never even read US v. Wong Kim Ark?

Gosh.

All aliens on English soil, with the permission of the King, were in “actual obedience” to the King.

And their children, born on English soil, were natural born subjects.

And as the Court in Wong said: The same rule ALWAYS applied. First in England, then in the Colonies, and then in the United States after independence.

The child born within the country, of alien parents, was a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT for as long as we used the word “subject,” and then when we changed “subject” to “citizen,” that child then became a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Supreme Court is absolutely clear about this.


626 posted on 03/09/2013 5:48:26 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan

That first sentence should read “Rubio is not a natural born citizen because his parents did NOT have American citizenship at the time of his birth in the United States.


627 posted on 03/09/2013 5:48:44 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
It seems to me that this should be very, very easy to agree to. And yet you seem to refuse. Why?

It's called Presumption of Fact.

Go play your little games with yourself.

628 posted on 03/09/2013 5:48:54 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

This FoxNews piece doesn’t surprise me since Cruz does not fit into their ideal profile for a candidate, their candidate that is. FoxNews has become a caricature of itself. It takes itself a bit too seriously. Just becoming another tentacle of the drive-by media.


629 posted on 03/09/2013 5:49:36 PM PST by Ron H. (Hussein Obama, the 21st century American Balkanizer - 'Yes I Can')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

This argument is moot anyway. Two Presidents thus far, Obama and Arthur, have not met this definition of “natural born citizen.”

No court in this land would define “natural born citizen” in this way because of the uncertainty and upheaval it would create.


630 posted on 03/09/2013 5:50:49 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Try the birth certificate. Note the name of the hospital at the bottom. Do not quote fact check as real facts, unless you have independent corroboration, they suck for truth.

631 posted on 03/09/2013 5:51:21 PM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I no longer have time to fool with this. I will drub you later.

Check. I understand. Drub ya later, then. Have a good night.

632 posted on 03/09/2013 5:51:46 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
No court in this land would define “natural born citizen” in this way because of the uncertainty and upheaval it would create.

But my point is that the entire heavy weight of all history and law is against this claim.

And there is simply no credible evidence to support it. Just a big pile of twisted quotes, misreadings, and birther wishful thinking.

It's not a matter of uncertainty or upheaval. The claim that natural born citizen takes birth on us soil plus citizen parents is simply, flat out false.

633 posted on 03/09/2013 5:56:25 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

people with similar birth situations (outside the US) such as McCain and George Romney would have been eligible if they had won.
______________________________________

Ah big old NOOOOOOOOOOOO

the 2 situations are no way similar...

McCains parents were in Panama because his under the jurisdiction thereof father who loved America was sent there by the US military...

George Romneys grandfather who hated America had turned his back on the US and was an ex-patriot and immigrated to Mexico to stay forever because he was against the laws of the US and refused to lived under the jurisdiction thereof...

the Romney family was there more than 20 years...thats not just a visit..some Romneys still live there..

George was born in Mexico and was about 5 when the Romneys illegally entered the US because of the revolution down in Mexico...

(They only left Mexico because of the revolution...the intention was never to return)

Willard even boasted that his father was an illegal alien when he gave his speech at the GOP convention...

No, while McCain could have a case for eligibility,

George Romney never could have...

when the Romneys mingled amongst hundreds of genuine returning American tourists and snuck into the US they never showed any papers or admitted they were Mexicans and had not just been visiting for a few days like the rest of the Americans fleeing north across the border..

George never became a naturizalized American citizen...

so his son Willard was not a NBC when he was born...

try that one out for size...


634 posted on 03/09/2013 5:58:35 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Oh, I’m in complete agreement with me. I just think the whole argument is moot. Even if their definition was correct, which it is not, TWO presidents have already failed to meet this qualifications.

I’m not even a fan of O’Reilly, but I do agree with him about this birther movement. It brings down the credibility of the legitimate criticisms of Obama.


635 posted on 03/09/2013 6:00:08 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: x

Who was Louisa Johnson’s uncle? No one with the surname Johnson signed the Declaration of Independence. Her father was an American merchant living in London at the time she was born—he was appointed a consul later, after Britain recognized US independence. She grew up in England and in France and was married in London—I don’t know if she had been to the US before 1801. But I think having a citizen father would have made her a US citizen. Reportedly John Adams initially was opposed to John Quincy marrying a “foreigner.”


636 posted on 03/09/2013 6:03:05 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
It's called Presumption of Fact.

Go play your little games with yourself.

There is only "presumption of fact" if I don't have evidence to back the facts. But I do.

And you obviously know this. You are obviously FEARFUL of agreeing to the PROPOSITION I have made.

Why are you fearful?

You are fearful because you really, really WANT to believe Vattel's book controls the definition of "natural born citizen." Because you have a vested interest in that.

For one thing, you've said it. Publicly. So if I'm right, then if you are honest, you will have to admit that you were wrong. And admitting you were wrong is a bit, well, unpleasant. Embarassing, maybe.

I understand that.

But how about this? It is better to have admitted you were wrong, and to then be correct, than it is to stay stuck in your wrongness.

Isn't it?

And do you know what? All of us are wrong from time to time. It's no disgrace. ALL of us are wrong sometimes. I am, too.

Or would you rather be stuck on wrong?

Please tell me. Would you rather be stuck on wrong, stubbornly denying reality? Or would you rather know the truth, and be on the side of the truth?

637 posted on 03/09/2013 6:04:48 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
And it is time that real Patriots stopped tolerating this nonsense.

It isn't totally nonsense, but when people begin to seriously believe that the voters and their electors ( who rule on candidate qualifications) are going to be swayed by references to the mind games of some Swiss elitist who wore wigs and powdered his nose over 200 years ago, they are beginning to lose touch with reality. None of that baloney will ever matter to voters or their electors and they (and only they) will continue to have the final say on a candidate's qualifications to be president, just as they did in 2008, just as they did in 2012 and just as they did in every single presidential election prior to 2008.

None of these people with all of their musty old foreign books and theories has ever proven the birthplace or paternity of any of our past presidents and none of them has the slightest idea how they might go about proving (to the extent required by their own impossible standards of proof) where Obama was born or the identity of his father or where Cruz was born or the identity of his father.

If Cruz runs, they can present their evidence and cite their ancient treatises and, as always, the president will be selected by the voters and their electors after they have considered all of the candidates' qualifications. And, there will be people who will bitch and moan that the people made another mistake without ever coming to terms with the reality that the people and their electors will undoubtedly make some mistakes. But, we'll get by like we always have gotten by.

And, Obama will go down in history as our first Hawaiian president. ;-)

638 posted on 03/09/2013 6:04:50 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
Oh, I’m in complete agreement with me.

Such refreshing candor, lol.

639 posted on 03/09/2013 6:05:57 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
I’m not even a fan of O’Reilly, but I do agree with him about this birther movement. It brings down the credibility of the legitimate criticisms of Obama.

Unfortunately, true.

640 posted on 03/09/2013 6:08:54 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
There's no way you'll win with them, though I agree with your understanding and am grateful for your efforts and information. That was what I was taught in 5th grade and I've not seen much to change that understanding.

Instead, what I've learned is that no matter what, if they can't win on facts, they just change the definition.

Constitution says NBC but you don't like that? Don't bother changing the Constitution, just rewrite the definition!

It's the same play that's being run on defining marriage or making abortion legal and many others. No institution or organization is immune and no standard you cite will ever be enough to satisfy them or convince them that they are wrong.

It's everywhere. Even supposedly christian churches have embraced and are now teaching points of view that are clearly and unequivocally judged as sin in the Bible. Whatever.

Kinda cool how the Bible predicts and talks about that as well.

Anyway, I'm not making that case, just noting that the tendency to simply redefine meanings if they can't force the change in belief is not limited to just politics.

Speaking of...did anyone ever figure out what the meaning of "is" is?

641 posted on 03/09/2013 6:09:13 PM PST by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny as well. Lol.


642 posted on 03/09/2013 6:09:20 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

My dad pointed out to me that one of only times the United States acted imperial was with its acquisition of Hawaii.

I guess karma is a bitch because our acquisition of Hawaii resulted in President Obama.


643 posted on 03/09/2013 6:11:02 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; RegulatorCountry

Ooops! Quite an unfortunate typo, especially considering the birthers are calling me obtuse.


644 posted on 03/09/2013 6:12:00 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Article XIV

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Article I

Section 8 (Congress shall have the power)...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Immigration and Naturalization Act:

INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899


645 posted on 03/09/2013 6:15:00 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Sorry, I thought that was assumed (not that he *was*, but *IF*)


646 posted on 03/09/2013 6:16:35 PM PST by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to thoe tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

From the time he was 4 years old until the time he was 8 years old, Woodrow Wilson did not consider himself a citizen of the United States and had no intention of being a citizen of the US in the future.


647 posted on 03/09/2013 6:16:51 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
One thing about this debate that has always intrigued me is what the common understanding of "natural born citizen" was in the early days of the country. By "common understanding," I do not mean Supreme Court decisions, but what people wrote about it in articles and books.

The earliest citation that I found, as you all know, is Thomas Paine's reference in his 1791 book The Rights Of Man to "foreigner" and "half-foreigner" as not being eligible to be president.

I wanted to find more citations, though, because one is not enough to prove a point. I hadn't found any words for or against the thought that both parents had to be citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen, other than Paine's reference to "half-foreigners" being excluded. However, absence of proof is not proof of absence. So I went looking for more.

I found a fascinating website called 19th Century Schoolbooks, which I had hoped would shed some light on what the school children were taught about American history, the Constitution, and politics and governments in the years after ratification of the Constitution.

After reviewing all the political books at this collection, I drew some generalizations:

1. The earliest reference is to Noah Webster's 1806 book "Elements of Useful Knowledge." In his section on the Constitution, he refers to the president's qualifications as "The executive power of the United States is vested in a president, who holds his office for four years. To qualify a man for president, he must have been a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, or must be a native of the United States; he must have attained to the age of thirty-fire years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States..."

All future books use this same language, "native of the United States." While they all go on to explain that the purpose was to prevent foreign influence and corruption, they never give a fuller definition of "native."

2. This was an interesting take on the qualifications from Analysis of civil government: including a topical and tabular arrangement of the Constitution of the United States : designed as a class-book for the use of grammar, high, and normal schools, academies, and other institutions of learning, Author: Townsend, Calvin, 1869


Chapter XII. Executive Department.

[snip]

Art. III Eligibility.

1. The age required was regarded as necessary to give the candidate for this office sufficient time to demonstrate his character, and enable his fellow-citizens to judge of his fitness for the high position of chief executive of a great nation. The mental faculities are usually in full vigor at this age; and opportunities must have been afforded for long public service, and for varied and large experience in the public councils.

2. Fourteen years's residence in the United States is intended not only to give opportunity for an extensive acquaintance on the part of his fellow-citizens with the candidate for this office, but also to furnish him with the requisite knowledge of the wants and institutions of the country. Besides, it may be presumed that a citizen whose residence has been chiefly abroad may not only be deficient in affection for his own country, but he may have become partial to the institutions of other countries with which he has long been familiar.

3. The Constitution requires that the President shall be a natural-born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This is an important restriction, when we consider the sacredness of the trust committed to the charge of the Executive. It will be useless for ambitious foreigners to intrigue for the office, as this qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad, to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of other countries.

4. But, through the bloody struggle of the American Revolution, our fathers were greatly assisted by the aid of many citizens who were natives of other countries. They had espoused our cause, faught and bled in our interests, had become naturlaized citizens, and had proved their attachments to our institutions beyond all doubt. It would have been ungenerous and ungrateful to have excluded this class of citizens from all possibility of attaining to any office, however exalted, under a government which they had sacrified so much to establish. Hence this saving clause of the Constitution, that, if a person was a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of that instrument, this clause has become practically obsolete.


This book skips over the natural-born part and goes to the grandfather clause instead, which is a shame. I am somewhat humored by the caution against citizens who were raised abroad who return to the United States and become president. Obama is everything this author warns of. Although he lived in the country for the required period of time, his past records have been sealed so that the people cannot gain the acquaintence with him that the author expected to be the case.

3. I was especially intrigued by this book, Introduction to the science of government, and compend of constitutional and civil jurisprudence: comprehending a general view of the government of the United States, and of the government of the state of New York, together with the most important provisions in the constitutions of the several states by Andrew Young, 1825. He, too, skips over the part about natural born, but his chapter on Naturalization of Aliens was interesting. He talks about the citizenship status of minor children of aliens who become citizens, and of widows and children of men who declare intent to become citizens but die before doing so. What he does not discuss is the alien who births a child while in the United States. Perhaps such discussions were not considered proper topics for schoolchildren, and that's why we don't have paper trail?

In the Founders' and Framers' days, I can only assume that travel from afar was rare, the few sailing ships of the time used for commerce or warfare between England and France, and that people assumed that native citizens (people born here) were, by definition, born to parents who were already here, and not some border-crosser who arrived within days of producing a child. Any infidelity that produced a child would still have been between two existing citizens of the country, and not a temporary already-married student visiting for a few years.

I'm still on a quest for early writings, but I have to admit that the absence of proof is starting to become circumstantial proof to me. That said, I still think that the Preamble provides a clue to the Framers' thinking that the Constitution was established to secure liberty for citizens and their posterity, posterity being the citizen children of citizen parents, who are the natural-born of We the People.

-PJ

648 posted on 03/09/2013 6:17:24 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

How would you propose he find out whether he is eligible to be POTUS - before wasting time and money on what could be a futile effort? How is he supposed to get a legally binding interpretation of the Constitution, on which to make his future plans?

And yeah, I realize that the Hawaii state registrar is a “nutjob conspiracy monger”. He’s the one who says he can’t verify Obama’s HI birth facts. Take it up with him. And in the meantime you could explain why all of a sudden we’re NOT supposed to take the State of Hawaii at their word, now that they have been lawfully asked to tell us what legally-valid birth facts they have for Obama, and we’ve got a document in which the state registrar certifies (swears) that he has obeyed the law (which requires him to verify EVERYTHING HE CAN, of what he was requested to verify) - that only verifies that they have a birth record for Obama, and doesn’t verify any claimed birth fact for Obama.


649 posted on 03/09/2013 6:18:05 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

My understanding from years ago was based upon my father being in WWII (42 INF), the Korean War (24th INF) , and; he was in Vietnam for two years (MACV x2). Yes, I was there also in high casuality unit, but; three wars is a tip of the beret. The deal I understood was like McCain, in that if both parents were US citizens and serving this nation overseas, every military brat born in Germany, Spain, Taipei. etc. or whatever military overseas US military hospital to two US citizens was a native born citizen. Obama does not fit this.


650 posted on 03/09/2013 6:20:25 PM PST by Lumper20 (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 1,551-1,578 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson