Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
Imagine actually READING the applicable section of the Constitution which states that one must be a Natural Born Citizen OR A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. Then imagine actually COMPREHENDING that which you have just read. But not you, apparently.
Which is exactly it. Until naturalization occurred, the denizen and his children would remain in that middle state as denizens of this country, and citizens of their own.
Thanks for the ping. This thread is a mine of useful information.
(and some other stuff but it’s easy to skip over it)
I don't mean to be insulting here. But honestly, I can't imagine a more idiotic comment.
Believe me, I've read not only the Constitution itself, but the Constitutional debates, I don't even know how many court cases, numerous books now, and just about every blogger's opinion on the subject.
I would suggest you become more informed.
Ruling - An emphatic "No, he'll no!"
Although Ted Cruz was born on the other side of the Canadian border, he was at birth a U.S. citizen, a Son of America in all respects and for all purposes because his mother was a full-fledged American citizen and Ted Cruz was by God's grace nourished within and delivered into this world by her 100% American body. As an apple tree can naturally produce nothing but apples, an American mother can naturally produce nothing but an American child, a "natural born citizen" of the United States of America. Any other conclusion can only be based upon a perversion of natural law and a contemptible defiance of our Creator's design.
Ted Cruz - 2016
(I believe that he may be our last chance to avoid the loss of our great Republic.)
Don’t ping me to your spam. I’m not interested.
A naturalized citizen can have his or her citizenship revoked and be deported, BUT a Natural Born Citizen or a born citizen CANNOT, not ever. An anchor baby COULD be compelled to leave with its illegal parents but has absolute right of return after her 18th birthday.
Just exactly WHERE do you deport an NBC TO???
I was starting to think you might have some merit in your arguments when you pulled this one out your Pelosi. How do I know all this? My dealings with immigration to get my LEGAL wife her green card. Now going through it for her son. I am an NBC, btw. Born IN the U. S., of citizen parents whose families go back to the Mayflower.
There is SOME merit to the argument that someone born to a military family on a US base abroad can claim NBC-ship, as there usually are Status of Forces agreements which cover such things. Others born abroad are NOT NBCs, especially if the father is not a citizen, by birth or otherwise. They may be birthright citizens, depending on the law at time of birth, but are not qualified for the presidency.
That's actually not true.
In the mid 1800s, Congress passed a law stripping American women of their United States citizenship if they married an alien.
There were instances of women who had been born in the United States, of United States citizen parents, who had lived their entire lives in the United States and never set foot outside of the USA, who were indisputably and absolutely natural born citizens even according to the silly birther definition, who were completely stripped of their United States citizenship.
The US Supreme Court upheld the law.
Why is this relevant? Because birthers falsely claim that cases like Roger v. Bellei are "proof" that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
Bellei was born a United States citizen, but stripped of his citizenship by failure to meet US residency requirements imposed by Congress to maintain that citizenship.
The birther argument is that if he had been a natural born citizen he could not have been stripped of his citizenship by act of Congress.
Therefore, such people aren't natural born citizens. Voila.
Except that - like virtually every birther argument - it fails catastrophically in the light of reality.
The fact that persons born in the United States of US citizen parents (in some cases undoubtedly going back for generations) have been stripped of their citizenship shows CONCLUSIVELY that this is just another failed argument out of literally dozens.
In fact, there's not a single birther argument that doesn't fail when you really look at it.
A more to-the-point way of saying this is that birtherism as a whole is simply BS.
But birthers will continue to do what they do. Which is: imagine that they really understand the history and the law, and that those of us who actually do understand the history and the law, who've done the research and thought through all the issues and all of the claims, are "ignorant."
Just exactly WHERE do you deport an NBC TO???
In the case of American women who were stripped of their citizenship, as far as I know, they didn't deport them to anywhere.
They continued to live in the towns they grew up in. But they weren't citizens. And if they left the country with their husbands, they might well not have been allowed back in.
The law, of course, was eventually changed. And the citizenship of these women was restored.
But not until after the act was upheld by the Supreme Court.
I was starting to think you might have some merit in your arguments when you pulled this one out your Pelosi. How do I know all this? My dealings with immigration to get my LEGAL wife her green card. Now going through it for her son. I am an NBC, btw. Born IN the U. S., of citizen parents whose families go back to the Mayflower.Good for you. You can run for President if you wish.
And if you and your non-citizen wife have a child, that child can run for President as well. Because that child will be born a citizen, and legally, that's basically all that "natural born citizen" means. Born a US citizen.
There is SOME merit to the argument that someone born to a military family on a US base abroad can claim NBC-ship, as there usually are Status of Forces agreements which cover such things. Others born abroad are NOT NBCs, especially if the father is not a citizen, by birth or otherwise. They may be birthright citizens, depending on the law at time of birth, but are not qualified for the presidency.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But there doesn't seem to be one single contemporary legal scholar of any note anywhere who agrees with you.
Historical scholars don't agree with you as well. Take, for example, James Bayard, who wrote an exposition of the Constitution of the United States back in 1834. In his section on Presidential eligibility, Bayard wrote:
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1834)
Bayard's book was approved by Chief Justice John Marshall, "The Great Chief Justice," who assumed his office just 13 years after the Constitution was ratified, and then dominated the Court for the next 35 years.
Chief Justice Marshall read Bayard's book and sent him a letter correcting him that Congress didn't need to get permission from the States to build postal and military roads. They already had it.
Other than that, the Chief Justice approvingly noted, he couldn't think of a single thing that Bayard had written in his exposition of the Constitution that wasn't entirely correct.
I'll try to remember to stop pinging you.
It may be a bit difficult, as you've displayed such an interest in the topic in the past.
It's interesting that you should make such a request, though. It makes clear that - like almost all birthers - you're not actually interested in the truth. You're only interested in "facts" that "prove" the point of view you want.
But every point in it has been well addressed before.
In fact, every point has been addressed AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
THOROUGHLY.
In short: Every point DL makes in 657 is simply just BS. And it's debunked BS.
1. He starts out with a long harangue about how I'm "wrong." Since that's the entire commentary - an allegation that I'm "wrong" - no further comment on that is needed.
2. He says I'm wrong when I say that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment considered that the citizenship provision of that law was simply declaratory of the law as it was. But that's what they said. We've talked about this before. I've posted the quotes before. He ignores them.
3. He says I'm wrong when I say that George Washington was a natural born citizen. I addressed that in great detail in post 626. As he does so often, he simply ignores the points that prove his BS wrong, and reasserts the same disproven BS.
4. He sets up a false dichotomy, claiming that John Marshall and Bushrod Washington "beat" Rawle as authorities.
But as I've gone over before, Marshall and Washington in the case he cites (The Venus) say nothing at all about natural born citizenship. The phrase "natural born" doesn't even occur anywhere in their opinion (anyone can look this up). And yes, Marshall quotes Vattel, even the passage birthers like, but he doesn't quote him on natural born citizenship. He doesn't even quote the translation that says "natural born citizens!" He quotes a more accurate translation of the same passage, for Vattel's opinion on how exactly to regard an acknowledged US citizen who's living in a country we're at war with.
So Marshall and Washington in the case he cites say NOTHING about natural born citizenship.
Even worse, Chief Marshall not only doesn't support DiogenesLamp - he CONTRADICTS him.
Marshall wrote to James Bayard that he found no error at all in Bayard's Exposition of the Constitution, except one minor point: Congress didn't need permission from the States to build postal and military roads. They already had it.
Other than that, Bayard's exposition was spot on.
And Bayard was CRYSTAL CLEAR that it did NOT take both birth on US soil and citizen parents to be a natural born citizen and eligible for President. Being born a citizen was enough.
So Marshall actually CONTRADICTS DiogenesLamps' bullcrap.
He then goes off on Bingham, who has also been discussed many times before.
5. He once again falsely accuses me of deliberately editing Bingham's words to not include that Bingham said "subject to no foreign sovereignty," even though in the exact same thread I had PREVIOUSLY specifically included a virtually identical quote.
6. As for Bingham himself, DiogenesLamp misrepresents his words. I have covered Bingham in quite a bit of detail in the past, and explained fairly well why he wasn't saying what DL claims, although not as comprehensively all in one place as is possible.
I've started work on such a comprehensive analysis of Bingham, but it's going to be pretty darn long. And I'm far from finished.
Not that I really need to write the thing in the first place. I have discussed Bingham so much before already. But I'm still working on it, nonetheless, and I'll probably eventually finish it.
And that's the entire "substance" of his post.
And, he will now tell you that I am making the “argument from authority” error in logic, huh?I've been auditing a number (most) of these Ted Cruz and related eligibility threads for several months. Interests in history and law make the topic a good one. Schedule doesn't allow for much posting (it's a very time-consuming habit), but I'll come off lurking mode for a bit.
Before the Supreme Court will address this issue, there first needs to be at least a few members of the legislative branch making some noise .....
Take Senator Cruz...
Most of us here agree with just about all his positions. BUT many of us conclude that he is NOT constitutionally eligible. Now, Senator Ted Cruz is a constitutional scholar and since he is being considered as a candidate for president in 2016. He definitely is in the right position to render an opinion and make an impact (ie he has standing). But he is avoiding the issue.
In a recent interview, he said that this is a legal question for others to decide and he is not going to engage.
So in the absence of any legitimate person in the legislature putting the issue front and center, why would the Supreme Court of the United States take it on?
As I said in my previous reply to you, IMHO this all must begin in the legislative branch. AND Senator Cruz should be at the forefront. If we do not get leadership from him now, the only conclusion I can come to is that his political ambitions are overcoming his courage to lead. By not taking a position and avoiding the issue, he along with many others including Sarah is complicit in the ineligibility of Obummer.
It matters.
bttt
Cruz had best avoid this fight because his birth facts are known and so is the wording and intent of the Founders. For him to be so stridently apart from other’s thoughts/beliefs will not be taken kindly by many Constitutionally bona fide eligible citizens.
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.