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

Skip to comments.

'Questions Are Being Asked': Chuck Todd Takes On Sen. Ted Cruz's Potential 'Birther Controversy'
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/questions-are-being-asked-chuck-todd-takes-on-sen-ted-cruzs-potential-birther-controversy/ ^ | 11:50 am, May 6th, 2013 | Meenal Vamburkar

Posted on 05/06/2013 9:44:33 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter

“Another birther controversy could be brewing for 2016,” MSNBC host Chuck Todd informed on Monday. Though this time aimed at a Republican: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who was born in Canada. While Cruz likely doesn’t face any real eligibility problems, Todd acknowledged, “questions are being asked.”

Snip~

How exactly is “natural-born citizen” defined? Since Cruz’s mother was born in the U.S. and his father became a citizen in 2005, Todd explained, going on to list similar scrutiny faced by President Obama, George Romney, and John McCain.

“The legal evidence seems to side with Cruz,” Todd argued, “but there is a grey area, and that may be all his opponents need.”

“It’s pretty clear that he qualifies as natural born,” Peter Spiro, a professor at Temple University, stated in response to Todd’s earlier question about how the term is defined. To clarify, Todd summed up: “If you are born to U.S. citizens abroad, no matter where, if they are U.S. citizens, if…one of your parents is a U.S. citizen — then that should qualify as natural born.”

(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 2016; birthcertificate; certifigate; congress; corruption; democrats; education; govtabuse; mediabias; naturalborncitizen; obama; sourcetitlenoturl; teaparty; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-264 next last
To: jonrick46
ask from the courts a judgement on what is the most accurate definition of a Natural Born Citizen.

I at one point, was led to believe that was exactly what Rubio was going to do. Cruz should, and so should Rubio.

201 posted on 05/07/2013 11:10:35 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (The Obama Molecule: Teflon binds with Melanin = No Criminal Charges Stick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeah. Harry Reid and Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and John McCain...all voting on principle! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The system is defunct now. It was more respectable in 1868. The system is now crashing and burning, and we had better get used to ridiculous pronouncements from our society and government.

202 posted on 05/07/2013 11:23:13 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.

I regard your persistence in citing modern day cases as nothing but provocation. I have no respect for modern courts. Utterly NONE. They are clown proceedings with no underlying principle or legitimacy. They are the creaking of the hull plates as this massive ship slowly twists before sinking.

It is pretty much accepted amongst conservatives that the courts are political tools, and do not accurately reflect what is the law, but rather the opinion of the people who are nominated to them. Court decisions are the darling of Liberals, Conservatives tend to loath them because too often have we been the victim of foolhardy and ridiculous pronouncements from the courts.

Why do you persist in citing institutions of which conservatives have precious little respect, and often down right hatred? What sort of conservative hides beneath the black robes of the despised liberal courts?

203 posted on 05/07/2013 11:30:40 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Yes the Court used the colloquial term “native born” to be synonymous with “natural born.”

And what did the court mean by usage of the word "Native" in say, 1875?

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Funny, their definition of the word "native" corresponds to OUR definition of the word "natural born" but not yours. How did the Justice Waite every become Chief Justice without understanding the meaning of this term "native"?

It's a mystery! Obviously the 1875 court is wrong, not you.

204 posted on 05/07/2013 11:45:54 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Yes, I know. Any court or judge who disagrees with you is stupid and corrupt. Save yourself the trouble of writing it again.

You have this backwards. Any court which is stupid and corrupt, I will disagree with.

Do you agree with Kelo v New London? Do you agree with Larrance v Texas? Do you agree with Wickard v Fillburn? Do you agree with Roe v Wade, or Plessy v Ferguson? How about Dred Scott v Sanford?

Tell us conservatives who have learned to detest the biased and corrupt court system how you agree with all these despised decisions because the courts "say so."

If you believe the basis of our laws should be "because the courts say so", then you are at complete odds with my understanding of Moral principle, and would no doubt have defended the decisions of the Volksgerichtshof as they stole the money and property from the Jews.

The Courts are not GOD.

205 posted on 05/07/2013 11:54:09 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I’m quite sure you didn’t expect my response. Arrogant jerks are never aware of what they are. When your type gets slapped with a little reality, it doesn’t go down well.

So keep on squalling and barking at the moon, Missy.

Good afternoon, now.


206 posted on 05/07/2013 12:19:09 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
I’m quite sure you didn’t expect my response. Arrogant jerks are never aware of what they are. When your type gets slapped with a little reality, it doesn’t go down well.

So keep on squalling and barking at the moon, Missy.

Good afternoon, now.

Ho hum, been through this quite a few times, thank you very much. I put a pin in your balloon, and you screech. This is what passes for reasoned debate nowadays.

No wonder the country is breaking on the rocks.

207 posted on 05/07/2013 12:44:24 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You left out significant sections of the Minor v. Happersett holding which help explain why it has not been successfully applied to Obama eligibility actions.
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”


And the next sentence following what you quoted is very important: “ Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”


208 posted on 05/07/2013 1:16:51 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
I like how they gloss over this part as well....

“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Was Cruz an alien or foreigner at birth? No. He was born a citizen.

One is either born a citizen with natural allegiance, or one is an alien or foreigner and must be ‘naturalized’ into a condition of allegiance.

209 posted on 05/07/2013 1:21:13 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
It took an act of Congress (the particular law in place at the time of his birth) in order for him to be a citizen. The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant citizenship to those born in foreign lands whether to citizen parent(s) or not.

Congress only has the power of naturalization. Although, they did try back in 1790 to legislate those born to citizen parents overseas, to be natural born Citizen. But they repealed that in 1795.

The Congress has, of course, changed the law many times:

U.S. Immigration Laws Over Time

Sen. Ted Cruz, assuming he was born in Canada in 1970 to a U.S. citizen mother, would have his citizenship status governed by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the Hart-Cellar Act.

Cruz was presumably naturalized whenever it was that his mother (most likely) filed the appropriate documents (similar to those) as described on the Naturalization Services page. Since he wouldn't have a birth certificate from a Hospital (or attending/certifying medical personnel) in the U.S., his mother would have needed to apply if she wanted/needed proof of his U.S. Citizenship - N-600. Application for Certificate of Citizenship or applied for a passport for him.

The difference here, is that those who want/need to prove their U.S. citizenship after being born in a foreign country (like Cruz), needed to apply for either a passport or use the N-600 form to lawfully enter the country permanently. Persons born in the U.S. obviously don't need to do that.

So far as I know, nobody in the public domain has seen his birth documents. We are simply taking his word at this point that he is a "citizen"...obtained through the powers and discretion of Congressional naturalization.

210 posted on 05/07/2013 2:58:02 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
There is a 14th Amemdment citizen who is born here and subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. These are todays' "native" born citizens.

You'll notice, the 14th says nothing at all about "natural born" citizens.

In fact, the father of the 14th amendment, and all those in congress at the time, knew that a "natural born" citizen was one born in the soverign territory to two citizen parents. The authors of the 14th clearly knew there was a difference between a "natural born" citizen and a "native" citizen and their new amendment (the 14th) had zero to do with defining who was a "natural born Citizen."

Somehow in today's world, people believe they know better than our forefathers and what they themselves knew when it comes to these issues.

There was also another type of citizen, specifically mentioned in the Constitution "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."

211 posted on 05/07/2013 3:07:25 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
"So far as I know, nobody in the public domain has seen his birth documents. We are simply taking his word at this point that he is a "citizen."

Oh, for the love of....

Do you realize how insane this is beginning to sound?

212 posted on 05/07/2013 3:28:41 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Whatever the Founding Fathers might have believed (and I’m sure you know that they were not of one mind on practically any subject) since the adoption of the 14th Amendment there has been no distinction in law or practice between a born citizen and a natural born citizen. In the modern world they are considered to be one and the same.
As far back as the 1898 landmark US v Wong Kim Ark decision, it was recognized that the 14th Amendment would impact natural born citizen status.
The government wrote in its brief for the Supreme Court: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerative departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 against the position of the government.


213 posted on 05/07/2013 5:19:33 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“So far as I know, nobody in the public domain has seen his birth documents. We are simply taking his word at this point that he is a “citizen”...obtained through the powers and discretion of Congressional naturalization.”


Barack Obama has never seen his vault copy birth vital records but those records have been seen by three persons in the public domain: Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics, and Loretta Fuddy, current Director of the Hawaii Department of Health. All three have issued official statements of verification for the original birth records and those statements have been entered as exhibits in courts of law.
The courts and Congress have taken their words for it, not Obama’s.
For example: “The state of Hawaii has said that the President was born there, that’s good enough for me.”—Rep. John Boehner, Speaker of the House.

Ten courts have ruled explicitly or implicitly that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. No court has ruled that he is not a natural born citizen.

For example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012


214 posted on 05/07/2013 6:11:58 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
No court has ever ruled that Obama is ineligible or that he is not a natural born citizen, whether Minor v. Happersett has been cited or not.

Thanks for making a dumb point and showing how inconsistent these rulings are since each fails to provide any sort of an actual legal foundation.

Purpura: No court has accepted the challengers position. That's circular logic. It doesn't make any reference to a legal foundation for this claim or the following claim. "The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law." And of course no law is actually cited by the judge, plus we have to ignore that at least 27 justices said there is merit on this subject in the law.

Allen: Arizona is bound by Supreme Court precedent ... except the obvious precedent in Minor ... which the court denies without any legal basis. And speaking of no legal basis: there is none for the court's assumption that Obama would be a natural-born citizen.

Swensson: Doesn't cite the Supreme Court. Cites a state appeals court that never said Obama was a natural-born citizen nor did that court say he was eligible for office. Claims that it "considered" Obama was born in Hawaii despite the absence of ANY legal proof.

Voeltz: Cites the 14th amendment but ignores that both Minor and Wong Kim Ark said the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizen. Uses circular logic to cite other courts (when in Purpura it was the inverse ... "No court ...").

Again, thanks for showing that none of these cases gives any positive citations to caselaw that specifically defines natural-born citizen while they deny the one case that did and that was affirmed unanimously as setting precedent on Art. II eligibility.

215 posted on 05/07/2013 7:22:28 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
There’s been a lot of time to reverse Wong Kim Ark. It hasn’t happened and its been cited as “stare decisis” as recently as last year.

Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012

Yes, I know. Any court or judge who disagrees with you is stupid and corrupt. Save yourself the trouble of writing it again.

This isn't about somebody being stupid simply because they disagree. It's because there's nothing in Supreme Court case law that supports this claim ... and we do have one court that already admitted that Wong Kim Ark did NOT declare its plaintiff to be a natural-born citizen on the basis of the criteria used by the court (thanks, Indiana Appeals Court). This federal court you cited is right to one degree ... it IS well-settled that those person born within the United State are natural-born citizens, but ONLY if they are born to citizen parents. Minor v. Happersett AND U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

216 posted on 05/07/2013 7:28:42 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
And the next sentence following what you quoted is very important: “ Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

The Minor court doesn't say that solving doubts about whether these person are citizens or not would make them natural-born citizens. In context, it has already say they are not. Natural-born citizen was used to exclusively characterize one class of persons. If the second class that you cited could be natural-born citizens, then the court had no reason to reject Virginia Minor's argument of being a citizen via the 14th amendment. What other point does it serve to talk about being born to citizen parents??

217 posted on 05/07/2013 7:31:44 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I like how they gloss over this part as well....

“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Was Cruz an alien or foreigner at birth? No. He was born a citizen.

One is either born a citizen with natural allegiance, or one is an alien or foreigner and must be ‘naturalized’ into a condition of allegiance.

There's no reason to gloss over this. Vattel said that some countries naturalize aliens at birth. Such falls under a category of collective naturalization. Cruz's citizenship can only be established under statutory U.S. law, which means that under natural law, he is definitely considered to be an alien at birth.

218 posted on 05/07/2013 7:36:52 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: edge919

For the sake of brevity I excerpted just the pertinent paragraphs from judges’ rulings that pertain to the subject of this thread. There are sections of the full orders of each judge devoted to discussions of relevant statutes and cited precedents. Anyone can read the full orders at scribd.com
You have a black belt in parsing language but a ruling stands unless and until it is reversed by a higher court.
There have been 90 state and federal appellate rulings on eligibility challenges and also 26 petitions and applications at SCOTUS. All of the original jurisdiction rulings stand and as I ‘m sure you know, appeals courts rule on possible incorrect application of law and legal procedure.
There’s never been a single ruling of an incorrect application of law; and of course state court rulings cite similar rulings in other states.

American general elections are conducted on a 50 state plus federal district basis. Purpura (NJ), Allen (AZ), Voeltz (FL) and Swensson, et. al. (GA) were challenges to eligibility for STATE ballots.


219 posted on 05/07/2013 7:50:26 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
For the sake of brevity I excerpted just the pertinent paragraphs from judges’ rulings that pertain to the subject of this thread. There are sections of the full orders of each judge devoted to discussions of relevant statutes and cited precedents. Anyone can read the full orders at scribd.com

So you say, yet if you wanted to present a persuasive argument, you could show where these excerpts are backed up by a sound legal foundation. So far, this has been an epic fail as I just showed.

You have a black belt in parsing language but a ruling stands unless and until it is reversed by a higher court.

We already have a well-established precedent from the highest court in the land that prevents Obama from qualifying for the office of president. Certainly, lower courts can fail to follow Supreme Court precedence and you have shown that pretty clearly.

There have been 90 state and federal appellate rulings on eligibility challenges and also 26 petitions and applications at SCOTUS. All of the original jurisdiction rulings stand and as I ‘m sure you know, appeals courts rule on possible incorrect application of law and legal procedure.

Or they don't. You're relying on circular logic. Supremacy by error doesn't override the error.

There’s never been a single ruling of an incorrect application of law; and of course state court rulings cite similar rulings in other states.

Nonsense. All rulings that refer to the natural-born citizen clause have been incorrect when compared to Supreme Court citations. The rest may be correct on procedural obstacles such as legal standing, officers who are exempted from responsiblity for vetting presidential candidates, timing of legal filings, etc., but they still don't override the principle on Article II eligibility that has been consistently defined by the Supreme Court as all children born in the country to citizen parents.

American general elections are conducted on a 50 state plus federal district basis. Purpura (NJ), Allen (AZ), Voeltz (FL) and Swensson, et. al. (GA) were challenges to eligibility for STATE ballots.

Yeah ... and the point is what?? No one has disputed that these were challeges to eligibility on state ballots.

220 posted on 05/07/2013 8:00:54 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

When you know the rock that the snake is hiding under its amazing how you can pick-up a 100 rocks and and not find a snake.

No one in the power circle - include judges - want to pick the correct rock. They know what is waiting if they do.


221 posted on 05/07/2013 8:41:46 PM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The fact remains, Minor v. Happersett has been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in several Petitions for Writs of Certiorari as cited precedent in Obama eligibility appeals, to no avail.
Twenty-four years after Minor was decided, the Supreme Court ruled that:

[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”


222 posted on 05/07/2013 8:51:39 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I think you may have forgotten that this thread is about a modern day elected politician who might run for president in 2016 and who might have his eligibility determined by modern day courts and contemporary elected officials.


223 posted on 05/07/2013 8:55:34 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
For 57 straight presidential elections, the voters and their electors have exercised their exclusive constitutional power to rule on the qualifications of the candidates. 2016 will be no different.

As always, the people will decide, with God's guidance.

Trust our Constitution. Trust the people. Trust God.

224 posted on 05/07/2013 8:59:25 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

Ok, if you say so.


225 posted on 05/07/2013 9:01:33 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food; Jeff Winston

Have we figured out why the birthers had Ted Cruz so much??

Are they Christie guys???
Maybe members of the Jeb Bush fanclub?


226 posted on 05/07/2013 9:05:23 PM PDT by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
Some of them could very well hate Cruz.

However, some of them just trapped themselves with baloney about Vattel and Kenyan birth certificates. If Cruz gets the nomination, they will come around.

There will be nothing to prevent them from "discovering" Cruz's real [American] father and a Cincinnati birth certificate. Or, maybe there is a previously overlooked Vattel footnote.

Whatever it takes.

227 posted on 05/07/2013 9:21:22 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

There has been no difference whatsoever in the rulings of liberal judges and conservative judges on issues related to presidential eligibility.
Only modern day courts have been and will be ruling on this issue with regard to Obama or potentially Cruz, Rubio and Jindal. That’s why the rulings are pertinent. If you find reality to be “provocative,” so be it.

There will be a very interesting test case soon, McInnish, et. al. v. Chapman. Every party in this Obama eligibility challenge is a conservative Republican: the plaintiffs and their attorneys, the defendant who is the Secretary of State of Alabama and her attorney, the Alabama Attorney General; and every member of the Alabama Supreme Court, without exception, is a conservative Republican including two of the widely acknowledged most conservative jurists in America, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker.


228 posted on 05/07/2013 9:34:37 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

The SC tends to avoid political questions.. so wouldn’t the eligibility of the President as a Natural Born Citizen qualify as a political question?


229 posted on 05/07/2013 9:36:11 PM PDT by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
The fact remains that the cases appealed to the Supreme Court were rejected by lower courts on procedural grounds, not because of any that overruled Minor ... and of course, no lower court has the authority to overrule a unanimous Supreme Court decision anyway. Twenty-four years after Minor, the Supreme Court affirmed that natural-born citizen is not defined in the 14th amendment and it is defined as all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Your citations says NOTHING about natural-born citizens, while mine do:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

- - -

the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

This is the last point in the Wong Kim Ark decision which uses the specific term "natural-born citizen." It could not be used in any application to Wong Kim Ark because his parents were not citizens.

230 posted on 05/07/2013 10:19:36 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
The Supreme Court has affirmed that Article II eligiblity only applies to native citizens, pointing specifically to the Minor v. Happersett decisions, as well as Elk v. Wilkins and Osborn v. Bank. Noticeably absent is any reference to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decided more recently than the other decisions. Obviously the court was persuaded by Minor's definition of natives as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." From Luria v. United States (1913):
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.

231 posted on 05/07/2013 10:22:51 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan

Absolutely right. Many eligibility challenges have been dismissed under the political question doctrine. One of the earliest was a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court of the United States and was denied a hearing before the full court. The original trial judge wrote: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
Barnett,Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al., US District Court Judge David O. Carter:
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf


232 posted on 05/08/2013 12:30:20 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
Do you realize how insane this is beginning to sound?

Do you know where he was born?

233 posted on 05/08/2013 5:54:18 AM PDT by GregNH (If you can't fight, please find a good place to hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
The SC tends to avoid political questions.. so wouldn’t the eligibility of the President as a Natural Born Citizen qualify as a political question?

Yes, you've summarized it all perfectly. However, in order to avoid committing themselves completely by admitting that the courts have no role in presidential selection, they tend to phrase it in terms of a lack of standing. The result is the same. The Supreme Court has never so much as hinted that it has the power to overrule a decision by voters and their electors that a presidential candidate is qualified.

The selection of a president is a political decision. The judiciary plays no role. Under our Constitution, the voters and their electors (and only the voters and their electors) have been entrusted with that decision.

In Iran, the qualifications of all presidential candidates must be approved by the Guardian Council. As we speak. the Guardian Council is hard at work to ensure that the Iranian people will not be given any meaningful choices in the next presidential election.

Do Americans want a Guardian Council to screen our presidential candidates? Do we need one? Do we really think that nine elitists in robes will be better than the rest of us at testing the qualifications of presidential candidates?

With the guidance of God, the voters and their electors have selected our presidents for 57 straight presidential elections. There is no need to change our system now.

234 posted on 05/08/2013 5:58:03 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
I think you may have forgotten that this thread is about a modern day elected politician who might run for president in 2016 and who might have his eligibility determined by modern day courts and contemporary elected officials.

And I have a Modern day court answer for this. Rogers v Bellei.

A Natural born citizen cannot be stripped of citizenship through inaction.

235 posted on 05/08/2013 7:55:42 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
There has been no difference whatsoever in the rulings of liberal judges and conservative judges on issues related to presidential eligibility. Only modern day courts have been and will be ruling on this issue with regard to Obama or potentially Cruz, Rubio and Jindal. That’s why the rulings are pertinent. If you find reality to be “provocative,” so be it.

Conservative Judges likewise do not overturn Liberal Court precedents either. This does not make them correct.

The Entire system deserves contempt. Since Roosevelt damaged it, it is overflowing with idiocy and anti-American concepts of law.

There will be a very interesting test case soon, McInnish, et. al. v. Chapman. Every party in this Obama eligibility challenge is a conservative Republican: the plaintiffs and their attorneys, the defendant who is the Secretary of State of Alabama and her attorney, the Alabama Attorney General; and every member of the Alabama Supreme Court, without exception, is a conservative Republican including two of the widely acknowledged most conservative jurists in America, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker.

All this means is that someone has obtained the best venue so far, but it doesn't guarantee that they will look at the entire history of the issue, or all the evidence, rather than simply relying on Liberal Precedent.

236 posted on 05/08/2013 8:01:33 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, ”strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President onThrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court, “independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger694*694 born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.” Ex. Doc. H.R. No. 10, 1st sess. 32d Congress, p. 4; 6 Webster’s Works, 526; United States v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a; Ellesmere on Postnati, 63; 1 Hale P.C. 62; 4 Bl. Com. 74, 92.

To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”


237 posted on 05/08/2013 9:58:32 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Here is what is so bothersome in dealing with your side. Not a single thing you posted refutes the point to which you are responding. Since you did not bother to post the message to which you were responding, i'll post it for you, and then it will be YOUR TURN to rebut the point.

Diogenes Lamp wrote:

And I have a Modern day court answer for this. Rogers v Bellei.

A Natural born citizen cannot be stripped of citizenship through inaction.

Now your rebuttal ought not include a reference to Wong Kim Ark unless you can find somewhere in that ruling a place where it says a "natural born citizen" can be stripped of citizenship by inaction. If you can find such text in that decision, then it is appropriate to quote that decision. If you cannot find words to that effect in that decision, then it is merely a waste of both our time's for you to quote that decision.

Now I presume you regard yourself as knowledgeable, intelligent and logical, so therefore I would also presume you understand what is the meaning of "addressing the point."

With that in mind, rebut my statement with a pertinent cite if you can, or if not, do the honest thing and admit the point is beyond reproach.

Back to you.

238 posted on 05/08/2013 11:27:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You do not get to control the procedure of the discussion, particularly when your side has lost 317 legal challenges in a row in courts at every level of the judiciary from small claims court in Florida to the Supreme Court of the United States.
You’re a one trick pony: Minor v. Happersett, a women’s suffrage case at that.
US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): “ [An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”


239 posted on 05/08/2013 11:40:45 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: ru4liberty

Ping


240 posted on 05/08/2013 11:50:57 AM PDT by ru4liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
You do not get to control the procedure of the discussion, particularly when your side has lost 317 legal challenges in a row in courts at every level of the judiciary from small claims court in Florida to the Supreme Court of the United States.

You do not get to cite irrelevant verbiage as a rebuttal and expect to get away with it. I cannot make you address the point. I can merely point out that YOU ARE NOT ADDRESSING THE POINT.

I have put my finger on something which you cannot answer without admitting you are wrong. As a result, you attempt these verbal forays into the bushes so as to avoid having to deal with the point.

Once again, How does a "natural born citizen" get stripped of citizenship through inaction?

241 posted on 05/08/2013 11:51:41 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“I regard your persistence in citing modern day cases as nothing but provocation. I have no respect for modern courts. Utterly NONE. They are clown proceedings with no underlying principle or legitimacy. They are the creaking of the hull plates as this massive ship slowly twists before sinking.

It is pretty much accepted amongst conservatives that the courts are political tools, and do not accurately reflect what is the law, but rather the opinion of the people who are nominated to them. Court decisions are the darling of Liberals, Conservatives tend to loath them because too often have we been the victim of foolhardy and ridiculous pronouncements from the courts.

Why do you persist in citing institutions of which conservatives have precious little respect, and often down right hatred? What sort of conservative hides beneath the black robes of the despised liberal courts?”

And 205: “You have this backwards. Any court which is stupid and corrupt, I will disagree with.

Do you agree with Kelo v New London? Do you agree with Larrance v Texas? Do you agree with Wickard v Fillburn? Do you agree with Roe v Wade, or Plessy v Ferguson? How about Dred Scott v Sanford?

Tell us conservatives who have learned to detest the biased and corrupt court system how you agree with all these despised decisions because the courts “say so.”

If you believe the basis of our laws should be “because the courts say so”, then you are at complete odds with my understanding of Moral principle, and would no doubt have defended the decisions of the Volksgerichtshof as they stole the money and property from the Jews.

The Courts are not GOD.”

These are two of the best posts ever posted to any thread at any time. We have a sm cadre of vocal liberals who do a reasonable job of not looking overly liberal...UNTIL the matter of courts comes up. Then they act like the total leftists they are.

Conservatives learned a long time ago to expect nothing from the courts. Well, nothing but periodic slaps in the face & kicks in the teeth. To say we lost faith in judges is too much an understatement. We realized that judges enjoy abusing their power to promote liberalism & undercut conservatism. We see this every single day.

Still you have posters, on this site no less, citing the judiciary as if it’s a moral authority. It’s an active battalion in the liberal army. There is no sentient, politically active conservative who doesn’t know this.

Still I appreciate your pointing it out so eloquently. Maybe if we post similar comments 10,000 more times, the liberals in our midst will start to catch on.


242 posted on 05/08/2013 1:01:18 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“Failure to report for induction”(Bellei) is not inaction, it is an action. That is what got Mario Bellei in trouble.
However the system eventually worked as Congress repealed the statute under which Bellei had lost his citizenship.

I intend to continue to cite what has been the landmark Supreme Court decision on citizenship and foreign born parents for the last 115 years. a decision which has been cited in scores of Obama eligibility lawsuits, always successfully.
Judges have referenced Wong in their decisions. Judges have not cited Minor v. Happersett, save one: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint


You’ve set up the classic straw man argument. When you lose, which your side has 100% of the time, you complain that all modern courts are corrupt. Yet it was the Supreme Court from 1898 which established the legal precedent that you have been unable to hurdle.
When confronted with legal precedent, you argue that the courts should not be guided by precedent that goes against what you think.
I am not going to get sucked into debating arcane points that have no relevance to actual real life rulings on an issue that is being adjudicated at this very time.


243 posted on 05/08/2013 1:02:53 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
“Failure to report for induction”(Bellei) is not inaction, it is an action. That is what got Mario Bellei in trouble.

So if *I* had failed to report for induction, I would have lost my citizenship?

244 posted on 05/08/2013 1:27:17 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Nero Germanicus

“How does a “natural born citizen” get stripped of citizenship through inaction?”

Interesting question. Assuming that Obama’s birth narrative is roughly what has been reported - birth in Hawaii, mother and father as reported on the LFBC pdf.

Could he be stripped of his citizenship by inaction? How about by the actions of his relatives (parents, step-father, etc.)? How about Senator Rubio or Governor Jindal or Senator Santorum?

Can someone who acquires citizenship by birth in the United States be stripped of their citizenship by inaction?


245 posted on 05/08/2013 1:30:37 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
Thank you. I appreciate the kind words, and that is how I really feel about the Courts. They were derived from the Divine Right of Kings, and they still think they wield the King's Divine right.

No wonder Liberals love courts. Liberals simply want to re-establish government by Monarchy\Aristocracy, and imagine themselves as the ruling authorities. That "equality" stuff is just for the "peasants." *THEY* expect to be among the ruling class.

246 posted on 05/08/2013 1:31:04 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Anther home run, DL. That is the element I tend to overlook. The fetishism of courts by liberals relates to the authoritarian nature of the former. So many times when they fail at the ballet box, they attempt and often succeed at imposing their will via the courts. It is the liberal version of nirvana/Shangri-La. A single liberal in a black robe can impose his/her will on a multitude of unwilling ‘subjects’, & five of them can do likewise to the entire country.

Makes you wonder if the libs have to wipe the drool from their chins as they rhapsodize about their judicial tyrants. The pleasure they take in watching these Kelo- type decisions destroy the country borders on the obscene.


247 posted on 05/08/2013 1:42:42 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

ballet = ballot


248 posted on 05/08/2013 1:55:39 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
I am not the first to note this philosophical bent of liberals. The term "Neo Feudalism" is a succinct way of putting it.

As I have pointed out countless times, the Soviet Union was not Communism, it was Monarchy/Aristocracy. The Premier, (Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev, etc.) were Kings. They could have anyone executed, they lived in Palaces, they ate the finest food and controlled the public treasury, the country did their bidding.

The Party apparatchiks were the Aristocracy, from the "Dukes" (Politburo Members) down to the squires. (Local party bosses and their families.)

A Joke I recall was that when Lenin first showed his wife the palace they would be living in with all the spacious accommodations and luxury, he asked her what she thought of it. She Replied, "But Darling, what do we do if the Communists come back? "

249 posted on 05/08/2013 1:57:56 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

That is a fascinating take, especially re: the USSR. I have been reading up on Stalin lately. He was a sociopath’s sociopath. As ruthless & bloodthirsty as any man in history. Still some liberals vigorously idolize him. I know one of them. She is a DU addict, & vaunts an embarrassing passion for Uncle Joe.

Your remarks reminded me of an article I read on AmericanThinker. It’s about a book by Jamie Glazov, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror (2009.) Here’s a quote:

“[Obama] is a leftist ideologue and no-holds-barred political fighter whose practice has consistently been to demonize the American equivalents of the hated kulaks (farmers) and petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) persecuted in the Soviet Union. Obama’s enemies include those “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as well as the presumably benighted bigots who fail to realize that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” With his anti-American, neo-Marxist outlook shaped by mentors and heroes such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright, Obama is naturally inclined to be suspicious of freedom and to feel sympathy for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/loving_the_enemy.html#ixzz2SjvMxv5s

Liberals as a whole are no less suspicious of freedom than Obama. & how best to curb freedom in America? Via judicial tyranny, of course.

(A little off topic, but here is my favorite Stalin joke:

A group of Georgians come and talk to Stalin, then they leave heading off down the Kremlin’s corridors. Stalin starts looking for his pipe. He can’t find it. He calls in Beria, the dreaded head of his secret police.

“Go after the delegation, and find out which one took my pipe,” he says.

Beria scuttles off down the corridor.

Five minutes later Stalin finds his pipe under a pile of papers. He calls Beria:

“Look, I’ve found my pipe.”

“Too late,” Beria says, “half the delegation admitted they took your pipe, and the other half died during questioning.”)


250 posted on 05/08/2013 3:02:27 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-264 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