Posted on 08/27/2013 10:44:47 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
The question that needs to be answered now is can one parent be ignored as to any parentage preference. I also note in your response you note the father’s had the qualifying trump power by 1790 and 1795 laws. If so what was the purpose of citing these in the previous discussions about parental importance. Am I missing something in your argument that Cruz is eligible for POTUSA based only on his mother’s citizenship?
Rand Paul’s immigration speech
03.19.13 | Hon Sen Rand Paul (KY)
Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2998395/posts
...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
[but he’s not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
At that point, what does it matter?
(Cruz)
I agree heartily with xzins comment here. I appreciate the work you're both doing for this issue. It's important to take the anti-Cruz people on, but it's more important to fight the major battles of Bambicare, immigration, budgets etc. Cruz is a leader on all the right issues, and it's there we have to fight shoulder to shoulder in each battle.
That being said, it's also important not to let these people take him out, it's what the left wants. Your efforts have been commendable, I believe you are prevailing in the argument. Kudos to both of you.
I hope we prevail in these issues, I hope we get better people elected in 2014, and I would love it if Cruz were to run and win in 2016.
One step at a time.
Good night.
Thank you Secretary Clinton.
I really wish that you were correct, but you’re not. The Constitution is codified law (written in articles and sections).
“Birthright Citizenship In the United States:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States
Besides, the Supreme Court ruled in 1874 that: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”—Minor v. Happersett
Hit a grand slam with two outs in the bottom of the ninth and win the game in a walk-off by one run. But fail to touch first base and the other team need merely tag the base with the ball, and you are out, the game is lost.
True constitutional conservatives have no patience for either party abusing the Constitution, continuing a constitutional canard, or failing to restore and enforce the original meaning of the document. I love Cruz. He can’t be president.
Thank you. That's very eloquent. I love baseball.
But, here's the thing. I have no doubt that you believe in your narrow little interpretation of the NBC clause and I'm not saying that the norrow little interpretation that you've been pitching is outside of the strike zone. I just don't think it would be fair to mistake your narrow little interpretation for the entire strike zone. I think that there exists enough uncertainty in the term "natural born citizen" to create a strike zone large enough to allow for other pitches that are somewhat different than yours. And, then, anyone who who has played much baseball knows that not all plate umpires call them exactly alike, either.
So, all you can do is develop and practice your pitch for the voters and their electors. They're the umpires in this game! ;-)
More insults, shows how well you can frame your arguments.
Pray tell, which of the noted Justices or Framers I quoted are the "evil men" you had in mind?
Cruz is the farthest from the lesser of two evils since Reagan.
You have been given good and sound reasons to show you are likely wrong in your opinion of eligibility. You may want to rethink your position, it's hardly clear, and the reason I call it "niggling" is not because it's unimportant, rather it's the manner you have come to your conclusion.
As to name calling, I used niggling and Pharisee, hardly the stuff of high Alinskyism. I've seen far worse from your side.
The reason I come to these threads is Cruz is NOT a shoe in. It will be a fight to get him nominated and then elected, and who knows if he will really run. The WAPOST put up 12 articles on the birther issue in two days, clearly the libs are setting this issue up, I wish that your side wasn't cooperating with the left quite so readily.
I want his kind of politician to succeed, I want to encourage him and I'd love him to run and win.
Your posts are an insult to every patriot here.
All of those that seek to place men under government are evil. Government is to be our servant, not our master. You obviously need a heavy hand above you, but functional men do not.
"The Second Amendment provides: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that '[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation."
How many "ordinary citizens" in the founding generation or today were/are familiar with Grotius, Vattel or any of Vattel's theories of citizenship? I think that if the term "natural born citizen" had in the minds of a few of the drafters some sort of special little meaning (in French or in English) and they wanted to bind Americans then or now to that special little meaning, then they were under an obligation to disclose that special little meaning in the text of the Constitution for "ordinary citizens" in the founding generation. I also think that, absent such a disclosure, "citizen at birth" is a very normal, natural NBC construction for ordinary citizens, then or now.
If some now want to impose on the rest of us that special little meaning, then they should amend the Constitution and add the appropriate language.
The U.S. government attorneys who argued against Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship status sure thought that they were fighting against natural born citizenship status. They wrote in their appellant’s brief: “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.”
And Justice Horace Gray who wrote the opinion for the six Justice majority sure thought that he needed to address natural born citizenship in his opinion: “[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.’”
The majority opinion also said: “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.’ an:d Justice Gray went on to write that “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
Do you really, truly believe that a newborn infant has “loyalties?”
To their parents, yes.
Please xzins, you have repeated this a number of times, and apparently not read the 1795 Act. I hope we write to inform those interested enough to read.
“The Naturalization Act of 1795 - An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the Act heretofore passed on that Subject. For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States;"
The 1795 Act repealed the 1790 Act, in its entirety. Here is law that replaced what was repealed:
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.<.u>
This was the Act Mark Levin, from whom I have learned and continue to learn a great deal. Levin stated, when asked about his views on natural born citizenship, that it was not an issue he had studied. I can't know his motives, but he was absolutely wrong in citing the 1790 act, either regarding Cruz or McCain. This was the act cited by Larry Tribe with Ted Olson, in Resolution 511 in April 2008, as McCaskill, Leahy, Clinton and Obama provided talking points, a “resolution has no weight of law”, so no one would ask eligibility questions, Democrats having spent years demonstrating McCain's noncompliance. Tribe, like Levin, didn't bother to mention the 1795 Act. I have no doubt that Tribe knew the truth. I believe Levin has too much respect for the amendment process to flaunt the intent of our framers, and so will withhold guesses conjecture about why he is so in conflict with settled law.
The sentiment, that children of military citizens be ‘reputed’ (from Vattel) natural born citizens, is one with which I agree, and believe one that deserves an amendment. But Obama and McCaskill’s SB 2678, from Feb 2008, the “Children of Military Families Natural born Citizen Act” failed to pass. It could have led to an amendment.
Tennesee Nana makes an excellent point. Any who believe that Hillary, who knows the law, and whose party has two Obama Supreme Court appointees who have not recused themselves from the pretrial hearing where the court decides to hear or not, an Article II case. The Supreme Court is clearly politicized. If an election is close, I would be surprised if Hillary, or a surrogate, like her Philip Berg, didn't challenge anyone whose eligibility was not beyond doubt, as is Hillary's. When a Republican tried, Nathan Deal of Georgia, the response came from the House, which used the IRS to bring ethics charges after perusing Deal's unaudited income tax returns from long ago.
Eligibility was certainly questioned during the Woodrow Wilson election, and Breckenridge Long, later in FDR's State Department, wrote a lengthy brief in Chicago Legal News, Volume 49, explaining the never doubted John Jay, Marshall, Vattel, Morrison Waite, Horace Gray, Evans-Hughes definition, and why Charles Evans Hughes, Wilson's Republican Opponent, was ineligible - Hughes’ parents were British citizens.
Many questions were raised about Chester Arthur, who nominated Horace Gray for the Supreme Court. Arthur never produced a birth certificate and was not removed by the Senate, there not being sufficient proof. Arthur, as discovered in 2008 by Leo Donofrio, always had a Vermont birth certificate, but hid it, probably to distract from the a fact never suspected or raised, Arthur's father was a British citizen, naturalizing when Arthur was 14, making Arthur our only other ineligible president.
Please try to remember that The Constitution does not, by design, contain definitions. If definitions in the Constitution were the criterion for whether we decide to respect its articles, the Constitution would be meaningless, which is probably the objective of many so-called progressives. Only one term is defined in the Constitution, which term I'll leave as an exercise.
That's a good, common sense question, isn't it?
I think that these good folks just got all tangled up in these exotic eighteenth century Swiss theories of citizenship as a result of their natural antipathy to Obama. After talking themselves into adamantly believing all this stuff, it's going to take some time for them to come to terms with reality. However, most of them will be inclined to want to support Ted Cruz and so I think in time nearly all of them will come around.
Ted Cruz - 2016
Treason!
Ted Cruz - 2016
Yep, I couldn’t have said it better. It seems to me that an American citizen parent can transmit a sense of patriotism, allegiance and love of country to a child who is capable of grasping those concepts, from anywhere on the planet.
Washington, Jefferson and Madison had no trouble accepting honorary French citizenship to show solidarity with the French Revolution. Nor did they oppose granting American citizenship to the Marquis de Lafayette.
De Lafayette imported American dirt to France so he could be buried on American soil.
A newborn has no concept of loyalty. That is why a wet nurse can function as a parental figure. A breast is a breast and milk is milk.
Yeah, me too. What else are we gonna do? I'm not going to cast off my own shipmates because we don't see eye to eye on this. I'd rather just keep repeating the same unerring logic and reason until it penetrates.
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.