Posted on 09/02/2013 9:58:26 AM PDT by xzins
The case with Jindal parents returning to India is irrelevant according to the Elg (307 US 325) Supreme court case.
Do you remember the guy who used to post miles of colorful text, background, pictures, blaring headlines?
Scroll wheel would get a major workout just to make it through that stuff to the next post.
I've actually read them until I realized that they are the same old rehash.
One of the birthers just got the zot. I don't think there's going to be a lot of tolerance for that crap this time around.
/johnny
/johnny
Read the Blackstone quote and origins of the law quotes.
Blackstone was followed throughout, and British law was followed throughout. They were used in 1790, 1795, 1802, etc.
So, the DEFINITION AND USE of “natural born” did not change from the way the British had used it.
A fine source for truth and eternal principle as ever has been. They MUST be believed.
Jones said it, they believe it, that settles it.
-PJ
ROFLMAO
come on. it’s not that complicated, is it?
you’re a natural born citizen if there are no alternatives.
cruz was born with the ability to be a US and/or canadian citizen (maybe even british). similar to 0bama, who if born in HI would have been a US citizen and a british citizen.
why was the clause written in by the founders? they stated why... it’s no secret.
their intention was to insure the president would not have split allegiances, at least by birth
it’s an extremely simplistic requirement... and the only single point of failure in the Constitution (IOW, if not obeyed, the Constitution would be in breech... which it is now)
Anchor babies....now that is a situation about which I’d make a law. When neither parent is already a US citizen, I would support a law that required a declaration of intention to pursue citizenship and a renunciation of other citizenships before I’d allow the child to be a citizen. And, I’d require it to be naturalized along with the parents.
Just my personal preference. And it relates to Cruz, because applied to Cruz in Canada, he never would have had their citizenship.
no use trying to reason with you, you have obviously not followed the last 5 years discussions. We are not subjects like the brits were and it is a big difference when it comes to nationality. If we followed
British law we would still be “subjects”. Congress cannot pass a law to change the Constitution, it must be changed by a Constitutional Amendment. try doing a little more research.
regards
show me the Constitutional amendment and then maybe i'll go along with your drivel
i realize reading is hard for you pro-0bama/ anti-birther types
what is the status of anchor babies? has it been decided by the supreme court? are they really citizens at birth ?
Read the Blackstone quote above
anchor babies would be native citizens by the ‘dry foot’ classification. this is not the same as a natural born.
keep in mind, the term ‘natural born’ is only used as a requirement for one position in the country.
Inferences will not prevail in the face of the determination to stop Cruz by the liberal elite and their house organs of the Leviathan state. Nor will the fact that the fraud in the Oval Office and "Chet" Arthur were not natural born citizens under the definitions used at the time in the area of citizenship. Both Marshall and Story opined from the bench in reported cases that the law of nations was what was looked to on the issue of citizenship. There is extrinsic evidence that supports the latter view from the time, such as the well known letter to Washington from Jay and no extrinsic evidence that the common law of England was behind the phrase. Likelihoods and surmises won't cut it. The word "citizen" was associated with the rise of republicanism as against monarchism and was not believed to be equivalent to "subject" but was considered quite different, since citizens were held to be sovereign in the ideology of republicanism. The early statute to which you refer was repealed and the repeal was accompanied by a recogition that it likely violated the Constitution and so needed to be repealed.
The hypocrisy involved will not stop the attacks on Cruz. The worshippers of the State don't give a hoot about hypocrisy. Nor did the ducking and giving of a free pass to the fraud in the Oval Office because he was half-black create "precedent." Avoidance does not establish a precedent. The closest precedent is Minor v. Happersett Waite carried weight as a jurist. The 14th Amendment cases such as WKA don't really apply and it clear from comments by the principal sponsor of the 14th Amendment in Congress that it was not intended to displace the law of nations derived definition. You fool yourself if you think that statist jurists will give Cruz the same free pass that they gave the great pretender in the Oval Office. The great pretender's foreign policy and warmaking are peeling away the sympathy for anything and everything he says and does that has ruled until now. The fear of Cruz' fearless constitutionalism ironically, will outweigh the backward-looking desire to protect the fraud at any cost as far as the members of the governing liberal elite are concerned. In their minds ideological status overrules the rule of law properly understood.
I think they anchor babies are born citizens, and I do think there was a court case affirming that, but I’m not sure it was SCOTUS.
you did not answer the question - dry foot is an administrative not legal term
I think they anchor babies are born citizens, and I do think there was a court case affirming that, but I’m not sure it was SCOTUS.
then I suggest you do some research before representing it as real law
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/02/21/closing-anchor-baby-loophole-restores-the-14th-amendment/
That's obvious nonsense, since it would make a person's NBC status dependent on some other country's laws. Suppose Switzerland passed a law saying that all children of 100% Swiss ancestry born anywhere in the world are entitled to Swiss citizenship. Then you're saying that a child born in Ohio of American citizen parents of Swiss heritage is ineligible to be President? Ridiculous!
i was born in the US to an American father and a Scottish mother.
at birth, i was a US citizen and British by descent.
this makes me a native citizen, but not a natural born citizen...
just like 0bama (assuming he was born in HI).
to this day, i can still pick up my British passport if i wanted
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.