Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
Why? Good question, grasshopper. The list of possibilities is long...just thinking out loud:
Human nature and the concept of race...(might lose the black vote? Why did Hillary start this effort then stop?) They really don't care, they're only there for the money? McCain said not to...Doing as told: Take one for the team? Lazy? Constitutional ignorance? Not worth the trouble since no one understands it anyway? The effort would get in the way of some other agenda? Could use it as blackmail later if he wins? Who cares, he can't beat us any way?
The list is as long as you and human nature can make it. What do they say when you ask them that question? I got a form letter when I asked.
With your expertise in our civics, do you know who certifies that a candidate is eligible? Have there been any legal challenges regarding obama?
Butterdezillion told us why they haven't touched it since. It's more of a "CYA and take the fifth" and/or lawyer up kind of approach you'd expect from a bunch of lawyers who know the potential penalties for not doing their job or worse.
Better to do the Alinsky and ridicule them as "Birthers" in public via the one stream media that does exactly as obama says with the "people pleaser" zeal of an adoring puppy.
Worked on you, didn't it?
The natural law that gave rise to "natural born subject" as well as the later American form "natural born citizen" was simple, and derived from the Bible.
The Bible said that people should be subject to authorities that God had put in place.
If this were true, then the bible would have no need to go into all the "begats" demonstrating who begat who. All it need say was that so and so was born in Judea, but yet it insist on detailing all the begats for some reason.
“These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter, and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls. These are the sons of Rachel, which were born to Jacob: all the souls were fourteen. These are the sons of Bilhah, which Laban gave to Rachel his daughter, and she bare these unto Jacob: all the souls were seven”
"Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David."David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Mannasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
You aren't Jewish because you were born in Judea, you are Jewish because you were born to a Jewish Mother. (Matrilineal)
England became a Christian country, and adopted this philosophy into their law, extending it slightly to the very logical conclusion that if a person was born into a realm, then he was to be a subject OF that realm, and of the governing authority over it.
England followed Roman law until it was changed. The usage of birthplace as the deciding factor occurred as a result of a succession issue involving James I. (James VI Under Scottish succession.) Had they not come to this ruling, (Calvin's Case) It would not have been possible for James I to take the throne of England because he was born to Scottish Parents rather than English parents. If James I couldn't take the throne, then the United Kingdom would not have become United. There was a great desire to see the Kingdom United under James I, so they just fudged it. English and American law has been screwed up ever since. (and you guys thought this was based on some "natural" principle or something.) :)
I will not dispute that he said that, but if what he said was true, then there was no need for him to say anything else. The fact that he then went on to describe how Mr. Smith's family was among the earliest settlers, and in every other way appeal to Mr. Smith's Jus Sanguinus bonifieds, indicate that Madison himself did not really regard that aspect (birth in South Carolina) as the deciding factor. Again, if that was all it took, then no further discussion was necessary. The existence of subsequent discussion demonstrates the principle to be false.
The reasonableness of this requirement is simply lost on our opponents.
Makes one wonder which team they play for.
So, does the Constitution forbid murder? Then the Constitution allows murder under your “logic”.
But murder is something that has always existed.
Dual citizenship is not. Oh true, children were born in foreign lands while their parents were visiting - but those children were NOT given citizenship in both lands, at least not in 1787, and certainly not to US children.
Why would the Constitution specifically address a type of citizenship which did not even exist?
1 PREFACE
.. THE following law-paper was written for the satisfaction of some fellow-citizens and friends, one or more of
‘’ whose children were born in foreign parts, during occsional visits by their parents to Europe. Such children
are Aliens, notwithstanding their parents are natural-
born citizens of the United States. The paper is printed
at this time, in the hope that Congress, at its present
session, may supply the defect of our law.
HORACE BINNEY.
, December- 1, 1868.
Because you keep thinking that having people on your side makes you correct, I do indeed regard you as stupid. REALITY is not subject to opinion. It doesn't matter HOW many people you have on your side. A lot of people believing something does not make it true.
As long as you continue to bring up who agrees with you (Argumentum ad verecundiam/ Argumentum ad Populum) I will continue to regard you as stupid.
“...neither the 14th Amendment, nor Wong Kim Ark makes such a claim.”
Agreed.
It says there is no distinction from those who are born inside the country. As the attempt to make a distinction is the crux of this point, not having a distinction from one to the other gives them the same status as someone born inside the nation's borders.
That is just incorrect. If you automatically became a US citizen by being born in the US then Congress wouldn't have had to pass the 14th amendment to say that all people born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction of the US are citizens of the United States.
The fact that slaves born in the US were not citizens demonstrates that being born in the US did not make you a citizen. It is not until the 14th Amendment was adopted that ius soli came into play. The 14th Amendment was passed specifically to make American citizens out of freed slaves born in the US, because those individuals were not already citizens by being born in the US. Ius soli was introduced to fix that problem.
All were subjects, mostly English. They were also CITIZENS of the several states. Basically they got to choose if they wanted to stay and become citizens of the *new* United States, or go on back “home.”
Since many families had been in the States for generations, most chose to remain. Instead of being a British subject who was a citizen of MA. or VA, for example, they would now be a US citizen in addition to being a citizen of MA or VA. By choosing to remain, they ceased being a “subject”
But it wasn’t exactly official until.......
SNIP:
February of 1783 George III issued his Proclamation of Cessation of Hostilities, culminating in the Peace Treaty of 1783. Signed in Paris on September 3, 1783, the agreement — also known as the Paris Peace Treaty — formally ended the United States War for Independence.
muchas gracias, Schmeegel, mi amigo!
I don’t really see the difference between a pregnant woman who boards a ship and comes to America. Sure, a few days is not the same as a month shipboard time. The concept is the same.
That’s a personal opinion but ten different courts have ruled either implicitly or explicitly that Obama is a natural born citizen. No court has ruled that he is not a natural born citizen. That’s not excrement, that’s a fact.
For example, in a trial on the merits in Georgia, the court ruled:
“For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Obviously, after July 4th, 1776 there would be "CITIZENS of the several states". But the proposed amendments say citizens before 7/4/1776 ("has not become a citizen before the 4th day of July, 1776" and "Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six"). There were no states before 7/4/1776 only English colonies.
The argument is that there were no natural born citizens before July 4th, 1776. My question is - who would the New York ratifying convention consider to be a citizens before 7/4/1776?
It does make you wonder. Instead of focusing on defunding Obamacare, some in this thread would rather play pattycake with the mythical two parent requirement.
Now Jeff, here you are going off the rails. Firstly, Thomas Jefferson was eligible by operation of the grandfather clause. Secondly upon becoming an American, he was no longer a French citizen as far as American Law was concerned. He may have been one according to French law, but the United States does not recognize as binding foreign citizenship laws as applied to American citizens.
They only wanted to guard against royalty native to other countries sweeping in and taking over.
Yes they did, and how do you guard against this if the only requirement was to be behind our border when the child emerges? Seems like a hole in their thinking. Every Royal in Europe could birth their children behind our lines without affecting their ruling status in their home countries.
What you are arguing is that Article II serves a purpose for which it is powerless to affect. (i.e. pointless.)
*HE* did state that he was born in Hawaii and there was some documentary evidence (birth records, newspaper articles) to support his claim. If there were to be a trial of the issue in some federal court, he could testify that he was born in Hawaii "even though [he] had no way of acquiring personal knowledge about that fact." Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 804(b)(4)(A). I will ask this question again: Is there anyone who is prepared to competently testify that he/she witnessed Obama being born somewhere outside of the United States? No judge will permit Donald Trump to testify as to what he imagines or wishes to be the facts. The court will be expecting some relevant admissible evidence that Obama was not born in the United States.
Perhaps it was to avoid this kind of crazy litigation that the Founders declined to create a judicial procedure for screening and qualifying presidential candidates. (The Iranians have a Guardian Council to perform that function.) Like the removal of a president, the election of a president is a political function and not a judicial function. There is no reason to believe that some local federal judge (sitting with or without a jury) would be better than the voters and their electors at resolving questions concerning a candidate's qualifications. In two consecutive elections, the voters and their electors heard and implicitly rejected the claim that Obama is unqualified to be president.
When I asked buitterdezillion what he or she thought should be done at this point, he or she responded as follows:
"SCOTUS should hear the cases about Obama’s eligibility, subpoena all the records, and if it is found that he is not eligible he should be judicially disabled from “acting as President” as per the 20th Amendment. Joe Biden should immediately become “acting President” and be impeached for treason. Nancy Pelosi and all the other Congress-critters who knew Obama was ineligible should be arrested immediately for treason, after which impeachment hearings should be held for Joe Biden - with the one or two Senators who aren’t in jail."
So, now I'll ask you the same question. Seriously, what do you think should be done at this point?
>> “That’s a personal opinion but ten different courts have ruled either implicitly or explicitly that Obama is a natural born citizen.” <<
.
So we have another trojan speaking up?
No court has or could rule that Oterror is a natural born citizen.
Yes, your post is a repeat of the excrement already dumped on us.
Minor V Happerset called out natural born as requiring two citizen parents, and they even used the other synonym, “natives,” that was used by De Vattel to characterize those with two citizen parents.
All other decisions since have referred to that well written decision.
It won’t go away, so just stuff it.
The big lie method isn’t going to work.
I meant to ping you to post 1078.
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.