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.
Minor asserts positively that the definition for "natural born citizen" is NOT written in the US Constitution. This blows the theory all to h3ll that the 14th amendment defines it. Judge Waite looked at the 14th amendment and said it wasn't in there.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
Now either Judge Waite is too stupid to read and understand, or you are. I'm betting on you.
You're ability to misunderstand the obvious is becoming legendary. It is funny as h3ll to see you suggest that someone ELSE doesn't understand something.
Secondly, the statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.
Congress giveth, and congress taketh away. And so you think Congress has the option to define "natural born citizen" any way it wishes?
You are a hilarious character and you are WAY out of your depth.
Will wonders never cease! Mr. Rogers posted something contrary to his own opinion!
I agree that the Constitution citing ‘law of nations’ in lower case (my copy) would substantially indicate the Founders, who were scholars, had in mind a general application for that Sec. 8 of the Constitution. However. it is a recorded certainty that Franklin had copies of Vattel’s works which he shared with others including members of the Congress. Taking all recorded events together with Jay’s suggestion to Washington it is to my thinking that Vattels words were the/a foundation for the word ‘natural’ put into the Constitution. One thing is important and that is that by Vattel or any other writings ‘natural born’ is a unique requirement for a document such as our Constitution.
The way you guys do it by framing odd logic and reasoning around a few conservative truths you know build instant rapport, then some ad hominen or such and tip it back to keep things going is so smooth and kookie.
Know that I dislike your methods and dishonesty, but props for the display of style you've attempted.
The best I can say? It's almost like watching Pulp Fiction the first time was for me.
I was contorted by laughing my ass off at some things I should have been horrified or disgusted or perhaps offended by. Such genius to pull that reaction out of me and make me laugh that hard! Tarantino is an idiot, but damn, that is a funny movie. Every time I see it.
Your style here has an evocatively similar effect, but just seems more adolescent and inexperienced. Which could be quite a statement, depending upon who you really are. None the less, Bravo for effort.
At this point I think you could be one of Joe Biden's interns, but your act is definitely consistent.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory? Shades of 1984!
A Dual citizen implies another nation having an equal birth claim on an individual. This violates the premise for which article II was created; To prevent foreign influence.
You're on a winning streak lately. Can I take bets on you? Is there a betting pool somewhere?
"Rumors of my victory have been greatly exaggerated." "
-Jeff Twain
The court decided "citizenship" by operation of the 14th amendment. They didn't decide that the 14th repealed article II. In order to have done that they needed to add two words to their decision; "Natural born."
Maybe they ran out of ink?
Cruz is in a grey area. A court could arguably declare him ineligible.
How can someone be "grey" as to whether they are a "natural citizen"? Cruz owes his citizenship to the act of Congress in 1934. Not natural law.
American Law said that full grown English Subjects had a right to come here and become Americans. They called it "naturalization." :)
The rest of your screed is not worthy of comment.
Well, unless you do, no one is going to take any action to remove Obama. It wasn't until I began reading these threads that it dawned on me that, even if a court were to provide you with a courtroom, you have no evidence to support your claim. I kept thinking that there must be at least one pretty good witness who is prepared to testify that Obama wasn't born in the United States, but I've learned recently that there isn't anything stronger than Donald Trump's speculations about what he wishes to be true. How can you sensibly demand a trial without preparing any evidence to support your cause?
The voters have no way of knowing where the guy was born.
What is new about that? Neither you nor I know where any of our prior presidents were born. We just know what we read.
Lots of our presidents had no birth certificate of any kind. Doesn't your claim that Obama's birth certificate is insufficient falsely imply that the Constitution requires some kind of birth certificate? It doesn't. So, the fact that you don't like the looks of the one that the state of Hawaii has provided does not constitute any kind of evidence that Obama was born outside of the United States.
Twice, the voters and their electors had implicitly decided that Obama is qualified to be president. If you don't have any evidence that he was born outside of the United States, you don't really want a trial because, if you somehow get one, you will be slaughtered and embarrassed.
Or those who fully intended to become citizens. People didn't come here on a whim. They came here to settle.
I attribute not a small component of this to vote fraud. It's the Chicago way.
No they didn't. They acted out of ignorance. (Good job media!) Do not mistake blundering about blindly for affirmative selection.
And yet it does not say "natural born." It conspicuously omits those two words, as did the authors of the 14th. Must be an ink shortage or something.
Shhh!!! You’re making sense!!
No, I have not contradicted myself.
“Everything not forbidden is compulsory?”
Nope. The Constitution does not forbid a dual citizen from being President, but neither does it compel it.
“This violates the premise for which article II was created; To prevent foreign influence.”
The NBC clause was not meant to prevent someone from foreign experience. After all, only 14 years of residency is required of a President. And NBC was a legal term, that allowed for alien parents - so it allowed someone to have Swiss parents, be born in the US, and thus both an NBC and swiss citizen. That was all known by the Founders, and accepted by them.
Remember, the first case trying to define NBC came in 1844, and it emphatically declared a woman who was born in the US and lived her for a whopping 3 months to be a NBC. That decision was never challenged or overturned, and was cited approvingly by the US Supreme Court, among others.
“Cruz owes his citizenship to the act of Congress in 1934. Not natural law.”
Congress has the right to define the parameters of a NBC. It is NOT only the courts that can do so. And it is arguable that they did so by saying someone born of a single US parent overseas qualified. If you are a naturalized citizen, as two of my kids are, then you have naturalization papers declaring you became a citizen on such and such a date. If you are a citizen, and were not naturalized, then you are a citizen born - which is traditionally how NBC has been defined.
Remember, Minor and Elk agreed - there are only 2 ways to become a citizen, birth or naturalization. And the second comes AFTER birth, and requires papers.
Someone arguing original intent could argue that a female parent was not part of the original definition of NBS/NBC, and thus a US FATHER was required, or perhaps BOTH parents. That area of law was never definitively settled - thus a ‘grey area’. But I’d bet $500 to FreeRepublic that if it ever goes to court, they will decide he was born a citizen, and thus meets the requirement for NBC. Wanna take that bet?
I use the analogy of Adoption. (I am adopted, by the way.)
An adopted child may convey the family name to his descendants. (as did I) A child who is simply born in the family house may not.
What is naturalization but a country adopting someone?
I think Mr. Rogers is actually wavering on this one. Earlier in the thread he said Cruz is in a gray area, and subject to court challenge.
“The court decided “citizenship” by operation of the 14th amendment. “
No. There is a reason they spent a great deal of time discussing NBS/NBC. There is also a reason they concluded that NBC & the 14th covered the exact same people, and thus meant the same thing.
But I’ve quoted it many times on this thread, and you and other birthers refuse to read.
So go on, and take as many hundreds of cases to court as you wish - and continue to lose every case. Remember - YOU are the ZERO people - 0 of 50 states, 0 of 535 members of Congress, and 0 courts.
And yet you think they gave us "anchor babies" and "birth tourism." Also they forgot to "citizen-ize" Indians, slaves and loyalists... those Silly buggers.
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.