Posted on 01/16/2016 3:43:22 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
OMG what does that matter. He had two citizen parents at the time of his birth and he was born in the USA. Bark up some other tree.
You are right that needs to be addressed to avoid loose ends. This is a very thorough examination of just that point. http://www.yjil.org/docs/pub/39-2-tutt-treaty.pdf
Great article, thank you for posting.
As the author, I thank you. Although it does get lots of reads, words are greatly appreciated.
US v. Wong Kim Ark was a travesty, and Fuller's opinion one of the finest pieces of legal research I've ever read. Yet such cannot be determinative. No legal opinion can cover all of life's contingencies, nor encompass all that might come. The fallacy of stare decisis is that applicability as a matter of advice should not by itself compel.
Personally, I like handling these questions to expose their fallacies by thought experiment. Consider the following "cases":
A pregnant citizen comes to a US hospital, delivers, and goes back to another country, to raise the child there. While that child would be legally "natural born," he or she would hardly satisfy the purpose of the distinction. And here is where I get to the point (one of the reasons I am very glad I never became a lawyer):
Hence, whether or not Ted Cruz is legally a natural born citizen, he is obviously justly so, which is why all the conniptions are such an annoying distraction devolved to the level of technicality.
I don’t support Trump for President. I’m having too much fun watching him kick the GOP/RNC in the ass!
Unfortunately though law is a messy fit to life we cannot decide everything on a case by case basis. Relegating law to the sidelines is a dangerous precedent. I am not as sure as you are that it is academic. In Ted Cruz’s case this may be so but to go that route opens America in future to very questionable circumstance. The reason we have laws is because of the problem of who gets to decide, we would like to grandfather in Cruz, the Dems Obama. Laws are an attempt to remove it from the personal where the group in power or the best player rules the day. There is still the activist judge to contend with but that can be challenged and over ruled.
I didn't say so. It is however important to remember that the pursuit of justice is just that. The big problem is the price of that pursuit.
There is still the activist judge to contend with but that can be challenged and over ruled.
Of the over 300 equal protection cases that came to the SCOTUS after Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific, 14 were about people and the rest were corporations. "Equal justice" cannot be pursued if it cannot be afforded, regardless of the merits of the case. Obviously, the converse can be true, which is how we got the majority opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark. That was the cheap labor express in action.
Then why couldn’t we get rid of DUMBO under the same clauses or Constitutional stated origins? It’s been tried for 7 years and hasn’t worked. Just makes good fodder for the press.
Nor does it address the Military Base born issue to 2 US Citizens. Military bases are not American soil. So that child carries dual citizenship up until they are 18 or was the age at the time my step daughter was born in Japan in a Navy Base Hospital. McCain got away under that.
But Military Bases are NOT US SOIL. US Citizenship comes from the parent(s) with this factor. Or those who travel overseas and might be born in a foreign country today. It is a grey area that has not been truly addressed. When the Constitution was framed there was very little travel outside the US and we did not have Military bases abroad. Only the wealthy class could travel overseas at that time or they were government sent like Ben Franklin was.
It does raise questions that the USSC has not addressed in a strong manner. That is why we have the ability to admen the Constitution. Many of our laws depend on a Statue coming out of the Constitution.
If you come down to fact on the 2nd Amendment NO gun restriction law is Constitutional.
Born abroad is easier to argue, just by the structure and text of the constitution (it is a jus soli arrangement).
Why we can't get anything done is rooted in the elites having control of the "official narrative." If the candidates don;t make challenges against each other, and the courts punt (or make up new law with more handwaving), the people are merely spectators.
US citizenship starts first with citizenship of the parents, citizenship in a STATE. That is strongly determined by domicile and residence, but I don;t cease to be a citizen of Illinois when I go to Wisconsin for a day or a week or whatever.
-- But Military Bases are NOT US SOIL. US Citizenship comes from the parent(s) with this factor. --
That is citizenship by blood, and there is an Act of Congress that creates and confers US citizenship as a matter of US law.
-- It does raise questions that the USSC has not addressed in a strong manner. --
On birth abroad, it's been addressed. The anchor baby issue is interestingly, an issue because it creates so many who have deemed to be citizens-at-birth. IMO, SCOTUS got it wrong in Wong-Kim-Ark, and children of alien parents are citizens of their parent's country, not of the US. The 14th amendment is being improperly applied.
-- If you come down to fact on the 2nd Amendment NO gun restriction law is Constitutional. --
That's what SCOTUS said in the Miller case, except it said if the arm had a military use, then it couldn't be restricted. Then a bunch of activist appeals courts read the case for the opposite of what it says, and the falsehood became the truth.
Just like the falsehood that citizen-at-birth=NBC can become the truth. All that has to happen is the people believe. The sun orbits the earth -500 years ago, that was considered metaphysical truth.
Just as expected. Strip away the “what the framers had in mind” ploy and all that is left is a bunch of crybabies.
Thanks for posting here and making that clear.
A messy business indeed!
This really kills the “what the framers had in mind” ploy. The framers had in mind that those who were foreign born can be President under acceptable circumstance.
“Dave isn’t here, man”....
Unless they are within the confines of one or more states or territories of the United States.
Minor v. Happersett states there is no doubt that an individual born under US jurisdiction to citizen parents is a natural born citizen. But, it also says that some authorities go further and extend that status to those born under other circumstances, about which there are doubts. It goes further to state that such doubts can be resolved. Being born out of the jurisdiction of the US leaves open the possibility of birthright citizenship from another nation that determines citizenship in that manner. Being born to a noncitizen parent leaves open the possibility of citizenship by descent from another nation that determines citizenship in that manner. Every individual circumstance is different, with different legal ramifications, for those who were not born to citizen parents within US jurisdiction. It’s clear to me at least that the concern was legal jurisdiction over a President, and only US jurisdiction was acceptable.
I was strictly referring to foreign Military bases.
We are still dealing with DUMBO’s citizenship being proved. I’m trying to keep an open mind on Cruz and the Citizenship issue. FReepers keep digging up stuff like this.
Attorney Suspended From Practice?
http://www.behindenemylinesradio.us/2016/01/breaking-cruz-birther-suit-attorney.html
But constitution still says for president the words natural born
I don’t think it’s ever been tested but it will be if Ted gets the nomination
So why not get court to rule now
So many people who know better being obtuse
Like today
But constitution still says for president the words natural born
I don’t think it’s ever been tested but it will be if Ted gets the nomination
So why not get court to rule now
So many people who know better being obtuse
Like today
But constitution still says for president the words natural born
I don’t think it’s ever been tested but it will be if Ted gets the nomination
So why not get court to rule now
So many people who know better being obtuse
Like today
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.