Posted on 08/23/2015 9:57:49 AM PDT by Steelfish
“...The opinions that matter are those of the Founding Fathers...”
And those founding fathers failed to define the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” which no subsequent court has seen fit to remedy. Hence, we got saddled with the Kenyan in the White House.
So, unless you can point to case-law or SCOTUS decision to the contrary, or can offer any evidence that Ted Cruz should have been denied the birthright citizenship that he currently holds, then *opinions* will vary, and the opinions that matter today, as we bicker over what the definition of “is” is, will not be your opinion, my opinion or the founding fathers collective opinions.
As for me, if given a choice between a Clinton, Sanders, Biden or any other traitorous demoncrap candidate vs Ted Cruz, I will vote Cruz and sleep like a baby knowing full well a brilliant patriot is at the helm and the country is finally on the mend.
You can claim all the righteous indignation you like and guffaw your guts up about what you *think* the presidential qualifications are — if that’s what you need to feel superior to everyone. I don’t care. I really don’t. And neither do those who determine who is qualified to be placed on the Presidential ballot. They likely care even less than I do.
So what are you going to do about it? Sit home, stew in your self-imposed misery and not vote? Well, fine. You’ll be doing us both a favor.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. 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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible
BTW....The Constitution is not a dictionary. There was only on definition of the phrase 'natural born Citizen' at the time the Constitution was drafted, and it was in 'The Law of Nations'.
“...The Constitution is not a dictionary...”
You are correct! The courts are where any vagueness is decided. So, if you can just point me to a court precedent defining presidential qualifications regarding birthright citizenship (natural born or otherwise)... Local... County... State... Federal? Anything outside your and my opinions?
Not immigration cases. Immigration cases have no bearing on Presidential qualifications, unless the court precedent determining presidential qualifications either qualifies or disqualifies a candidate based on immigration law...
Here, I’ll save you the effort: IT DOESN’T MATTER. Let’s say you come up with an ironclad argument that can not be refuted. Who is going to do anything about it? What office of appropriate jurisdiction has shown the slightest interest in disqualifying any Presidential candidate *ever*?
What are *you* going to do about it? Fuss? Fume? walk around waving a sign?
Here’s what *I’m* going to do, and what every other responsible voter is going to do: look at the candidates on the ballot and vote for whoever we think is best. Period.
You don’t have to like it. But you may want to find some way to live with it, otherwise all that unrequited self-righteousness is going to burn you up.
BTW.... I'm providing facts and defending the Constitution. You are the one fussing and fuming and advocating treason. Shame on you.
“...I just provided you 6 Supreme court cases...”
You provided immigration case law. Which has no bearing on Presidential qualifications *until* SCOTUS rules for/against a presidential candidate’s qualification(s) based on one or more of those cases. Until then, they are only valid for immigration case law.
You really have no idea how case law works in actual practice, do you? And you failed to answer a very simple question: Regardless of how many *potentially* (but not yet applied) cases you cite, or even presuming you do happen to stumble across the perfect, unassailable argument (like you parrot someone else’s immigration case law cites without understanding what you are reading) — who’s going to prosecute? What entity of appropriate legal authority has shown the slightest interest in disqualifying a Presidential candidate that a political party puts on their ballot?
So *AGAIN*, what are you going to do about it? I’ll tell you what you are going to do: Not.A.Darned.Thing. except - sulk, fume and ignorantly wave your immigration cases like you’ve found a pot of gold and to no avail.
Meanwhile, reasonable and prudent folks will do what I am doing: looking at the candidates on the ballot (be that Cruz or someone else) and voting for the candidate we like most without regret.
Your amateur opinion don’t figure into it. Like I said, you don’t have to like it. But you may want to find some way to live with it, otherwise all that unrequited self-righteousness is going to burn you up.
Can you read that, Obot?
You provided immigration case law. Which has no bearing on Presidential qualifications *until* SCOTUS rules for/against a presidential candidate’s qualification(s) based on one or more of those cases. Until then, they are only valid for *IMMIGRATION* case law.
Let me put it so that even a “D” student like you can understand: Please show how immigration case law defining *any* class of citizenship has (past, present or future) been used to either validate *OR* invalidate a presidential candidate that has appeared on *ANY* party’s ballot?
Well, you *can’t* because it’s never happened. And until it does, you can parrot all the immigration case law you like and all you can prove is that you lack the basic comprehension of what you are parroting. Go ahead. Post it again my little puppet. It will still be every bit as non-applicable to Presidential qualifications as the first time you posted it.
So *AGAIN*, what are you going to do about it? I’ll tell you what you are going to do: Not.A.Darned.Thing. except - sulk, fume and ignorantly wave your (to date) *useless* immigration cases like you’ve found a pot of gold and to no avail.
Meanwhile, reasonable and prudent folks will do what I am doing: looking at the candidates on the ballot (be that Cruz or someone else) and voting for the candidate we like most without regret.
Your amateur opinion don’t figure into it. Like I said, you don’t have to like it. But you may want to find some way to live with it, otherwise all that unrequited self-righteousness is going to burn you up.
I’m not really posting for your benefit, but rather so others confused about the issue see the information the media has suppressed. My hunch is that you are no more than a very low-level DNC operative. I doubt a paid operative, as your debate skills leave much to be desired.
Not at all — you keep parroting some immigration case law as if you have proof of presidential qualifications vis-a-vis citizenship and you lack the basic understanding of case law to realize you have *NOTHING* until:
A) a balloted presidential candidate’s qualifications are challeged
*and*
B) one or more of your immigration cases are used to either validate or invalidate the candidate.
Until then (which seems bloody unlikely), you have *nothing* pertinent to add to the debate.
LOL! And you - the man ranting & waving (ahem) “facts” that amount to an “unloaded toy gun” when debating presidential qualifications - dares to challenge anyone else’s debate skills? HA!!
You sure seem determined to undermine Cruz — a decent conservative candidate. And yet you think I’m the DNC operative? What’s left in your feeble, dusty bag of tricks? Will your faux conservatism slip and you’ll call me a racist next? Don’t look now Huff-Post-Boy, your slip is showing...
I’m guessing you want Cruz out of the way of your preferred candidate, which I’ll guess is Sanders? Clinton? Or do you prefer light-in-the-loafers GOPe candidates like Swishy-Lindsey Graham?
So *AGAIN*, what are you going to do about it? I’ll tell you what you are going to do: Not.A.Darned.Thing. except - sulk, fume and ignorantly wave your (to date) *useless* immigration cases like you’ve found a pot of gold and to no avail.
Meanwhile, reasonable and prudent folks will do what I am doing: looking at the candidates on the ballot (be that Cruz or someone else) and voting for the candidate we like most without regret.
Your amateur opinion don’t figure into it. Like I said, you don’t have to like it. But you may want to find some way to live with it, otherwise all that unrequited self-righteousness is going to burn you up.
Again, you are incorrect. Minor vs. Happersett had nothing to do with immigration. It was a VOTING RIGHTS CASE.
Apologies - I didn’t realize you need to have it spelled it out in such low-level detail. I’ll remember this when you knee-jerk your next reply: You’ve only provided case law which has no bearing on Presidential qualifications *until* SCOTUS rules for/against a balloted presidential candidate’s qualification(s) based on one or more of those cases. Until then, they are only valid for the scope of their decisions (immigration, voting rights, whatever their scope was).
So *AGAIN*, what are you going to do about it? I’ll tell you what you are going to do: Not.A.Darned.Thing. except - sulk, fume and ignorantly wave your court decisions (which are to date *meaningless* towards qualifying/disqualifying a balloted presidential candidate) as if you’ve found a pot of gold and all to no avail...
Meanwhile, reasonable and prudent folks will do what I am doing: looking at the candidates on the ballot (be that Cruz or someone else) and voting for the candidate we like most without regret.
Your amateur opinion don’t figure into it. Like I said, you don’t have to like it. But you may want to find some way to live with it, otherwise all that unrequited, faux self-righteousness is going to burn you up.
Now I can keep explaining it to you, but I can’t understand it *FOR* you.
You’re pathetic.
LOL!
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.