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.
The notion is absurd. The laws of other nations couldn't possibly have any bearing on who is eligible to run for President and who is not. Yet somehow I can't get a single birther, on any of these threads, to respond to my question.
Welcome to the party, highball. I have had some real difficulty myself getting birthers to respond to even simple yes or no questions. It's kind of like trying to get maple syrup out of an oak.
Sometimes even really simple questions with obvious answers. Like, if the evidence is clearly better that someone else supplied the phrase "offences against the law of nations" in our Constitution, will you agree that Vattel was not the source?
Real obvious stuff. Absolute refusal to answer.
All of which is an illustration in itself that not only is birtherism a complete fantasy, at least some of the birthers themselves KNOW that it's a complete fantasy.
I've shown the exact words of the decsion itself, and it says no such thing.
-----
You also might want to read up on binding precedence and persuasive precedence.
You might want to look up legal precedent
Of which Wong Kim Ark is not.
The case is, however, suitable for the purpose of showing the original intent of the term 'natural-born citizen' still existed even then.
Of which Wong Kim Ark was not.
Yes, I created it.
And do you know why I made it look that way?
I modeled it directly and absolutely after the BIRTHER one!
Haahaahahahaahaaahaahaa.
So there was no original artwork there at all, except that I faded the circles a bit to make it blend better. I just modeled it after the birther one.
Heck, I even made the circles the same size as the birther graphic.
So you're not even insulting my artwork. You're insulting birther artwork, because that's what I reproduced.
FR is loaded with dipsh!t’s trolls.
They get to ride the lightning when they out themselves.
I’m amazed, Mr Rogers.
MamaTexan thinks she understands legal precedent.
Go on, MamaTexan. Please explain to us what makes legal precedent. Explain to us what makes for dicta. Tell us about the different kinds of dicta. Tell us how to tell what is precedent and what is not. Tell us how to distinguish between the different kinds of dicta.
Enlighten us with your wisdom.
What should happen if the voters elected him? Who is supposed to handle violations of the 2nd Article and 20th Amendment to the US Constitution? In this case a violation BY THE VOTERS.
Put the original Venn diagram side by side with your own admitted copy of it and maybe you’ll learn where you went wrong. Maybe you’ll even learn enough to make a more passable imitation next time.
Jeff Winston for example.
It really amazes me, so many people claiming to value the Constitution. And they come on here and argue against Founding Fathers like James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. They misrepresent the words of Thomas Jefferson. They ignore and revile the close associate of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. They try to make the Constitution say something that no court case has ever said it meant in the entire history of the United States.
And then they claim to be Constitutionalists.
And those of us who've actually read the Constitution, and read the court cases, and read the debates of the Constitutional Convention, and read the historical quotes, and who are representing them 100% ACCURATELY... well, we're "dipsh!t trolls."
“Please point to any credible published source to back up your novel assertions.”
I already have. The court cases on inheritance made it clear that anyone who was a NB Subject in the colonies automatically became a NB Citizen in the US. There was no grandfather clause to make them citizens. All those who were subjects, and who did not go to England after the war, all automatically were citizens of the new country. And all NBS became NBC.
There is nothing novel about my ideas. The novel idea is that George Washington wasn’t considered a NBC of the USA. That is birtherism nonsense.
“Point out an instance of an English natural born subject who remained so of their own free will who was ruled eligible to inherit property in early US history, immediately post-Revolution, Mr. Rogers. This should be interesting.”
You are very confused. If the NBS went to England, they remained English subjects. If they chose to remain in the USA, they all, without exceptions, became NBCs.
That is my point. Those who stayed in the USA were NB Citizens, and eligible to inherit. If they hadn’t been, they would not have been able to inherit without being naturalized first - which never happened.
“Oh, and by the way, I notice you haven’t responded at all, as to just who is recorded in history books as having been our first natural born citizen President.”
Easy - George Washington. Only birther idiots would pretend otherwise. I give you my word - George Washington was acknowledged as a citizen, and was so by birth, not naturalization. George did not need a grandfather clause, and he would have beaten your butt like a soccer ball if you had tried to claim otherwise.
By launching the stupid ad hominem attacks, you broadcast loud and clear that you don't have a single substantive argument to make.
So anyone observing can see how absolutely, thoroughly bankrupt your claims are.
Heck, I think even you know that all the birth on us soil PLUS two citizen parent stuff is just complete BS.
The thing that amazes me, though, is why you and others like you continue to push clearly and absolutely false claims. Claims for which no court and no significant legal authority agrees with you. Perhaps you can explain that.
Post 911. Awesome.
Their narrow-minded world view is really kind of pathetically limiting in a way. Not that I'd feel sorry for the irritating little wankers.
All the while claiming to be a “Constitutionalist.”
Yes indeed. Team players. The other team.
President Obama kept up with this his forged birth certificate game so this dissapointing and disreputable fact about his orgins would not be brought to life.
You expect accuracy from a geocentrist??
Me too. 5th grade, 1970.
We had a great teacher, And she taught about the constitution. She said everyone thinks that just being born in the states makes one eligible, but, she said, some believe you must be born to US citizens.
I remember it like yesterday. She was hands down prettiest teacher I ever had. I remember every minute in that class, LOL.
“I’ve shown the exact words of the decsion itself, and it says no such thing.”
Actually, you have never read the decision, and you howl in protest when extensive quotes are made.
I know you won’t be able to understand the following paragraph from the decision, but I’ll present it for those capable of reading:
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.”
Thus all those who were NBC were 14th, and all those who were 14th were NBC.
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution...would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words...the two classes of cases [that] had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
There is a fundamental rule, citizenship by birth within the country. It applied to the colonies, and then to the USA under the Constitution. It had two primary exceptions, and the wording of the 14th merely used the fewest words to restate that.
Wong Kim Ark, coming from the US Supreme Court on the US Constitution, is binding on all courts in the US. The holding is the entire argument used, and not just the final sentence in a decision. Ober dicta are those throw-away sentences, not critical to the argument and not discussed or argued in the case, that courts sometimes make - like Minor did on the meaning of NBC.
Since you refuse to read the entire decision, you cannot say what the argument was. Everyone else can, and thus all 50 states, all 535 members of Congress, and all courts in the USA know the issue was settled in 1898.
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.