Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity - Sen Ted Cruz is natural Born Citizen!!!

Posted on 03/06/2013 1:26:12 PM PST by Perdogg

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 last
To: allmendream

The Supreme Court created a “fourth” type of citizenship in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, when they made a distinction between natural-born citizens and 14th amendment “citizenship by birth.” The court said the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. The court cited NBCs as a separate class of citizens than those persons born on the soil without regard to the citizenship of the parents. The court affirmed that NBCs do NOT need the 14th amendment to become citizens AND they confirmed that citizenship by birth via the 14th amendment only applied to the children of resident aliens. It’s all there. Read it.


101 posted on 03/07/2013 9:18:09 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
They clearly rejected him on all those points, and there is nothing to even faintly suggest they followed his ideas on citizenship.

Other than several Supreme Court decisions that specifically use Vattel's definiton and go so far as to characterize it as the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar ..."

102 posted on 03/07/2013 9:22:08 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The phrase you use referred not to Vattel, but to the common law. And whenever the Court says “the common law,” that includes the English common law which was our heritage.

It’s the same common law that the Wong Court referred to repeatedly, over dozens of pages.

The remedy for a bad President is to scratch and claw at the bad President, not to scratch and claw at our Constitution.


103 posted on 03/07/2013 11:25:26 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper; Perdogg
If this turns out to be the case, Cruz would be at the very top of my list of favored candidates. He has the guts, the communication skills, and the experience to run a great campaign and be a great leader.

I agree... Cruz would be at the top of my list as well!

104 posted on 03/07/2013 11:30:54 PM PST by nutmeg (Who and WHERE are the Benghazi survivors??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I LOVE that video of the good Senator Cruz with those idiotic clapping seals!


105 posted on 03/07/2013 11:33:37 PM PST by nutmeg (Who and WHERE are the Benghazi survivors??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Justices Scalia and Thomas would disagree with you on Wong. They cited from US v Wong Kim Ark in their ruling in Miller v Albright 523 US 420 (1998): “The Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only, birth and naturalization. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1060.ZC1.html
There is no member of the current court who believes that there is a distinction between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.


106 posted on 03/08/2013 1:28:50 AM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: edge919

McCain was not born in the USA or naturalized. How does the 14 th apply to McCain?


107 posted on 03/08/2013 6:24:08 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

I’ve gone to the internet and found many postings giving references to Ben Franklin’s involvement with Vattel’s writings and especially his noting of such to the Congress.One such writing is to Charles Dumas dated from Philadelphia 9 December, 1775. There are other such references available on the internet. Some where in my files is a reference to Franklin and Jay being connected on this matter.


108 posted on 03/08/2013 9:52:28 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
I’ve gone to the internet and found many postings giving references to Ben Franklin’s involvement with Vattel’s writings and especially his noting of such to the Congress.One such writing is to Charles Dumas dated from Philadelphia 9 December, 1775. There are other such references available on the internet. Some where in my files is a reference to Franklin and Jay being connected on this matter.

I would be interested in seeing your references to Ben Franklin and Vattel. I think I've seen some stuff in the past, but it was all very general.

There's not the slightest doubt in my mind that some of the Founding Fathers looked favorably on at least some of Vattel's writings and ideas. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Vattel was influential in the area of international law.

There is also not the slightest doubt in my mind that when it came to citizenship, they didn't give him a second thought. Just as they didn't give him a second thought when he said that the state should control religion, that the state should control speech (he approved the appointment of government censors, but said that "wise" people should be selected for the job), and that the right to keep and bear arms should be restricted to the elites:

"Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in times of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords."

Those who are big fans of Vattel here, let me ask you: Why aren't you supporting Obama's gun control measures and trying to take away guns from all the commoners and the riff-raff? That seems to be what Vattel would have been out in front supporting at this point in time.

The bottom line is: Natural born citizen clearly came from natural born subject. It always included everyone born in the country, whether their parents were citizens or not. And the exceptions to that (children of foreign diplomats and such) were very, very rare.

I understand that some have been deceived by the two-citizen parents birthers. But it is time that we stop indulging people who want to twist the Constitution.

109 posted on 03/08/2013 12:12:39 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Excellent post!


110 posted on 03/08/2013 12:31:44 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

I gave you one reference as to Franklin acknowledging Vattel. Go there and I think you can find many more references. My take as to the Founders considering/incorporating Vattel is they took what They deemed good for the new Nation. Their Constitution, and ours, explicitly refers to ‘the law of nations’ in Sec. 8 of Article I. I consider this validating that the Founders were very much aware/atuned to Vattel’s works on government. I believe that Franklin being much connected to France and a power in the framing of the Constitution did much to have the Founders knowledgeable about Vattel’s views of government.


111 posted on 03/08/2013 12:43:53 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
Their Constitution, and ours, explicitly refers to ‘the law of nations’ in Sec. 8 of Article I. I consider this validating that the Founders were very much aware/atuned to Vattel’s works on government.

Such a conclusions would simply be inaccurate.

The "law of nations" was a general category of law, and it was by no means the sole province of Vattel. He was simply one of quite a few different writers on the subject.

It's like saying that if Vattel wrote a book titled, "Right to Bear Arms," and the Constitution refers to our right to keep and bear arms, then that means the Founding Fathers were fans of Vattel's book and his philosophy, and therefore there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.

The example is fictional, of course (Vattel wrote no such book) but it illustrates what I'm saying. The "law of nations" was a GENERAL topic, a general area of law. And there is NOTHING to suggest that when the Framers referred to the "law of nations" in our Constitution, that they were referring to Vattel or his book.

Actually, if you want to go there...

What they referred to, quite specifically, was "OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS."

There IS a book that uses VIRTUALLY THAT IDENTICAL PHRASE as the title of one of its chapters.

The chapter title is: "OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS."

The book was EXTREMELY well known in the Founders' and Framers' day. The book that I refer to was far better known, far more used, and far more quoted, by the Founders and Framers, than Vattel's book EVER was.

That being the case, would you agree with me that this book, with its chapter entitled, "OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS," is most likely where they got the phrase from?

112 posted on 03/08/2013 1:08:44 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; LucyT
"however her birth date in 35 makes her four years younger than Ted's father--which is certainly not impossible. "

She is 4 years older than Ted's father.

Correct--that is what I meant. I just mistyped.

In that era, I thought it was unusual for an attractive young woman to be married to a guy who was four years younger than she was although that appears to have been the case.

I continue to be surprised that given the heated Texas US Senate contest, that no one has a detailed paper on exactly how this works.

Looks to me as though under the statute there is room for an issue as to whether or not Kruz was really a citizen at all which would make him ineligible to serve as a U S Senator.

113 posted on 03/08/2013 1:19:04 PM PST by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
I've found one reference to Franklin acknowledging Vattel, the letter to Dumas that you mentioned.

One link directed me to Jefferson's library, and to George Washington having borrowed a copy of Vattel's LON and never having returned it, all of which I was familiar with.

Like I said: It's clear that the Founding Fathers read Vattel. It's clear that they paid attention to him in areas of international law. But there's nothing to suggest they paid much, or even ANY, attention to him on matters of how to define citizenship. And again, even on the law of nations, he was only ONE writer of quite a few.

If you look at Jefferson's library, it has Vattel's book. It also has "law of nature and nations" books by Beller, Cumberland, Burlamaqui, Perreau, Ward, Grotius, Puffendorf, Wolff, Martens, Rayneval, Felice, Barbeyrac, Lee, Selden, Bynkershoek, and others.

Yes, Vattel was an important writer on the law of nations. But he was far from the only one.

114 posted on 03/08/2013 1:29:24 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Those who are big fans of Vattel here, let me ask you: Why aren't you supporting Obama's gun control measures and trying to take away guns from all the commoners and the riff-raff? That seems to be what Vattel would have been out in front supporting at this point in time.

Good find. There are other parts of Vattel that I don't think would get much approval around here, either: "The first impressions made on the mind are of the utmost importance for the remainder of life. In the tender years of infancy and youth, the human mind and heart easily receive the seeds of good or evil. Hence the education of youth is one of the most important affairs that deserve the attention of the government." Universal pre-K, anyone?

"The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority." Aaand there goes the First, following the Second out the window.

115 posted on 03/08/2013 2:43:16 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
But... but... but... Vattel is GOD! All the Framers said so!

Sort of an absurdity, isn't it? FReepers pushing the writings of a big-government philosopher who spoke out in favor of government-restricted speech, government control of religion, and no Second Amendment?

116 posted on 03/08/2013 2:49:50 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock

A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple.

Even though Senator McCain’s parents were living in the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth, they maintained a permanent residence in the United States.


117 posted on 03/08/2013 5:49:51 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
The phrase you use referred not to Vattel, but to the common law. And whenever the Court says “the common law,” that includes the English common law which was our heritage.

It didn't specify anything about "English" common law. The definition of NBC is a verbatim match of Law of Nations, which is ALSO recognized as common law.

It’s the same common law that the Wong Court referred to repeatedly, over dozens of pages.

No, actually it's not. The Wong court cited English common law over dozens of pages after affirming the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship and AFTER it affirmed the Law of Nations definition from Minor.

The remedy for a bad President is to scratch and claw at the bad President, not to scratch and claw at our Constitution.

Upholding the Constitution has nothing to do with scratching and clawing at it.

118 posted on 03/10/2013 8:58:22 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Justices Scalia and Thomas would disagree with you on Wong. They cited from US v Wong Kim Ark in their ruling in Miller v Albright 523 US 420 (1998): “The Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only, birth and naturalization. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”

This says there are two "SOURCES" of citizenship, but it does NOT say that there is only one class of citizenship per each source. Under naturalization law, we know there are several classes. Under birth citizenship, the Supreme Court has pointed out at least TWO different classes.

There is no member of the current court who believes that there is a distinction between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.

This is speculation that simply isn't supported by your citation. Let's see which one of these justices is willing to overrule the unanimous decision in Minor. The Wong Kim Ark court was NOT willing to do this. And the Luria court cited Minor and NOT Ark on establishing a precedent on presidential eligibility.

119 posted on 03/10/2013 9:02:50 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
McCain was not born in the USA or naturalized. How does the 14 th apply to McCain?

I didn't say it did apply to McCain. Why dod you ask??

120 posted on 03/10/2013 9:04:12 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: edge919; Mr Rogers
It didn't specify anything about "English" common law. The definition of NBC is a verbatim match of Law of Nations, which is ALSO recognized as common law.

The law of nations wasn't just Vattel. Have you even done any reading of the law of nations? There were 7 or 8 prominent writers on the Law of Nations. Vattel was only one; albeit a prominent one. But his views on citizenship WERE NOT SHARED BY EVEN ONE OF THE OTHER 7 OR 8 MAJOR WRITERS ON THE LAW OF NATIONS.

So there absolutely IS NO "LAW OF NATIONS 'DEFINITION'" of natural born citizenship, or of citizenship in general, for that matter. Because the major writers on the law of nations held a BUNCH of different and conflicting views on citizenship.

No, actually it's not. The Wong court cited English common law over dozens of pages after affirming the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship and AFTER it affirmed the Law of Nations definition from Minor.

The Wong Court cited the common law, which include English AND AMERICAN common law.

And Lynch (1844) clearly stated that THE AMERICAN COMMON LAW made people natural born citizens WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.

Upholding the Constitution has nothing to do with scratching and clawing at it.

Insisting that it says things that it VERY CLEARLY never said - such as that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen - is twisting it, scratching at it, and clawing at it.

121 posted on 03/10/2013 9:20:53 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

It’s a shame how dumb the framers of the Constitution were, spending all those extra words writing the qualifications for president without regard to what they had already written as requirement for Legislators, isn’t it? I wonder what soem of those men who authored parts of the Constitution have said reagrding NBC (’of that there has never been any doubt’)?


122 posted on 03/10/2013 9:37:17 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: edge919

There have been 20 SCOTUS appeals for Petitions For Writs of Certiorari, Applications for Stays and Applications for Injunctions which have been heard in Conference. Any single Justice can place a Cert Petition on the Discuss List and any single Justice can grant an injunction or a stay.
When a Justice places a petition on the Discuss List, the appellee is always asked to submit a brief in opposition so that the Justices can read both sides’ legal positions.
There has never been an Appellee Brief requested or submitted in an Obama eligibility petition or application.
Anderson v Obama (Petition for rehearing)
Barnett v Obama (Cert Petition)
Berg v Obana (Application and Cert Petition)
Beverly v FEC (Cert Petition)
Craig v US (Cert Petition)
Donofrio v Wells (Application)
Farrar v Obama (Application and Cert. Petition)
Herbert v US (Cert Petition)
Hollister v Soetoro (Cert Petition)
Kerchner v Obama (Cert Petition)
Keyes v Bowen (Cert Petition)
Lightfoot v Bowen (Application)
Noonan v Bowen (Application)
Purpura v Sibelius (Cert Petition)
Rhodes v MacDonald (Application and Cert Petition)
Schneller v Cortes (Application and Cert Petition)
ex. rel Sibley v Obama (Cert Petition)
Sibley v DC Board of Elections (Cert Petition)
Welden v Obama (Cert Petition)
Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz (Appkication)

Minor was a women’s suffrage action and US v Wong Kim Ark came 23 years AFTER Minor.

Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing


123 posted on 03/10/2013 9:42:38 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
The law of nations wasn't just Vattel.

Is there some part of the word "verbatim" you don't understand??

Minor: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ...

Law of Nations by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The Wong Court cited the common law, which include English AND AMERICAN common law.

... to define citizenship by birth via the 14th amendment. To define NBC, they cited and affirmed the Minor definition, which I've already shown is a verbatim match of Law of Nations.

And Lynch (1844) clearly stated that THE AMERICAN COMMON LAW made people natural born citizens WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.

The Lynch decision was a state court ruling by one judge giving an unsupported personal opinion. There's a reason why Lynch's claim about NBC is NOT cited in Wong Kim Ark while the Minor definition of NBC is fully cited.

Insisting that it says things that it VERY CLEARLY never said - such as that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen - is twisting it, scratching at it, and clawing at it.

This is drama-queen nonsense. Twenty-seven Supreme Court justices affirmed the definition I gave. There is no twisting, scratching or clawing.

124 posted on 03/10/2013 9:55:46 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Minor was a women’s suffrage action and US v Wong Kim Ark came 23 years AFTER Minor.

And another 15 years after Wong Kim Ark, the Luria decision cited Minor and NOT Ark as a precedent on presidential eligibility in a unanimous decision.

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.

Minor is the FIRST case cited after referencing native citizens and eligibility for the office of President. There's no mention of Wong Kim Ark at all. Minor's definition of native citizenship was the same as for natural-born citizenship: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. This definition was affirmed in the Wong Kim Ark decision before Minor was cited specifically tied to Art II presidential eligibility meaning that 27 different Supreme Court justices affirmed this NBC definition. An ignorant statement by an Arizona superior court judge that gives no legal basis for its assumption fails upon actual inspection of Supreme Court decisions.

125 posted on 03/10/2013 10:03:00 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Your post 95. The subject was what type of US citizen Mccain is. You suggested the 14 th created a fourth type. If we agree that the 14 th doesn’t apply to McCain and that he was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution that only leaves two types left. So do you think McCain is a naturalized or a natural born citizen? Or are you going to try to invent a fifth type? Lol!!!


126 posted on 03/10/2013 10:19:44 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: edge919
The law of nations wasn't just Vattel.

Is there some part of the word "verbatim" you don't understand??

Is there some part of the fact that there were 7 or 8 prominent writers on the law of nations, and that NONE of the others agreed with Vattel on citizenship, that you don't understand?

Minor: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ...

Law of Nations by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Why don't you quote the entire sentence? Hmmmmm?

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

Whether the wording seems "verbatim" to Vattel or not, it is clear that the Court was NOT referencing Vattel in that sentence, they were referencing THE COMMON LAW.

How do we know? THEY TOLD US.

The Wong Court cited the common law, which include English AND AMERICAN common law.

... to define citizenship by birth via the 14th amendment. To define NBC, they cited and affirmed the Minor definition, which I've already shown is a verbatim match of Law of Nations.

No. They specifically told us EXACTLY WHY they cited Minor, and it was NOT what you claim:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench.

So they cited Minor NOT to show that children had to have citizen parents to be natural born citizens, but SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THE MINOR COURT BELIEVED NO SUCH THING.

And they ALSO cited Minor for the purpose of showing that it was the COMMON LAW (and not Vattel) that one OUGHT TO LOOK TO in order to understand the phrase:

"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.

So yes, they certainly cited Minor. Just not for the reason you claim.

And Lynch (1844) clearly stated that THE AMERICAN COMMON LAW made people natural born citizens WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.

The Lynch decision was a state court ruling by one judge giving an unsupported personal opinion. There's a reason why Lynch's claim about NBC is NOT cited in Wong Kim Ark while the Minor definition of NBC is fully cited. Again, the Court said the Minor passage was cited to show that the Minor Court did not necessarily believe it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen. And while they didn't pull the quote from Lynch, THEY APPROVINGLY REFERENCED THE CASE THREE TIMES.

This is drama-queen nonsense. Twenty-seven Supreme Court justices affirmed the definition I gave. There is no twisting, scratching or clawing.

No, I'm sorry. That is simply not the case.

The evidence is absolutely, utterly overwhelming that neither Minor nor Wong say what you claim, and that virtually no real authority in history, including conservative Constitutional think tanks, agrees with you. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor completely contradicts you. And yet, like all birthers, you imagine you know more than virtually every authority in history, including the great majority of Supreme Court Justices who have ever commented on the issue.

And that's all I have to say. I stated two hours ago on another thread that my weekend was over, and I am returning to my work week. This is my final post to you.

So keep on twisting and misrepresenting the Constitution. Because I know that the facts are completely irrelevant to you, and you most certainly will.

127 posted on 03/10/2013 10:21:41 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Ok. Not your post but decidedly the subject under discussion when you opined about the 14 th.


128 posted on 03/10/2013 10:23:34 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Ok. Not your post but decidedly the subject under discussion when you opined about the 14 th.

I was responding to your errant claim that there are only three types of citizenship. The Supreme Court created a fourth. McCain's citizenship is debatable because under the law of nations, he's natural-born, but under statutory law, he fits closer with naturalization.

129 posted on 03/10/2013 10:43:07 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Is there some part of the fact that there were 7 or 8 prominent writers on the law of nations, and that NONE of the others agreed with Vattel on citizenship, that you don't understand?

This claim is irrelevant. You've not provided proof to back up the 7 or 8 prominent writers, but it's moot because I've already given the Supreme Court citation and the Vattel citation that match verbatim.

Why don't you quote the entire sentence? Hmmmmm?

It doesn't change anything so it wasn't necessary. The citation does NOT say "English common law." The common law that it cites is STILL a verbatim match of Vattel's Law of Nations.

Whether the wording seems "verbatim" to Vattel or not, it is clear that the Court was NOT referencing Vattel in that sentence, they were referencing THE COMMON LAW.

Nonsense. A verbatim match would be strong enough to be considered plagairism, but more likely, the court is being consistent with John Marshall's direct citation of this chapter of Vattel in The Venus case.

So they cited Minor NOT to show that children had to have citizen parents to be natural born citizens, but SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THE MINOR COURT BELIEVED NO SUCH THING.

You need to read that again. It says the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming. Otherwise, why does it continue and give the holding of the Minor decision as saying that Minor was found to be a citizen because she was born to citizen parents??

And they ALSO cited Minor for the purpose of showing that it was the COMMON LAW (and not Vattel) that one OUGHT TO LOOK TO in order to understand the phrase:

Again, you're misreading what it says. There's nothing here that says "not Vattel." Second, it says that one needs to resort to the common law as an AID in the construction of "the provision." The "provision" is the birth provision of the 14th amendment, not the natural-born citizen provision in Art. II. This citation is saying that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship, and that one has to go ELSEWHERE to define the birth provision. And that's why the Ark court tries to use English common law as an "aid," but it NEVER uses English common law verbatim because it can't. The Ark court respected the UNANIMOUS Minor decision, so it created a SEPARATE definition for 14th amendment citizenship by birth that was based partly on English common law with the addition of permanent residence and domicil of the parents to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. NBC is STILL a verbatim match of Vattel's Law of Nations. And that same definition is given verbatim in the dissent in Wong Kim Ark.

Again, the Court said the Minor passage was cited to show that the Minor Court did not necessarily believe it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.

There's nothing that says this.

And while they didn't pull the quote from Lynch, THEY APPROVINGLY REFERENCED THE CASE THREE TIMES.

Not exactly. They cited it a case that went to an extreme on common law:

Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.

If this were compelling, then the Ark decision could simply stop here and declare Ark to be a citizen. But this obviously is not the case at all. This citation is from page 674 of the decision. The decision goes on another 30 pages trying to find OTHER stronger, more compelling justification.

No, I'm sorry. That is simply not the case.

It is the case. Minor was unanimous: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These were natural-born citizens. Ark cited this definition and gave the holding based on citizen parents and the dissent gave the Law of Nations-Vattel definition. Luria, 15 years later, unanimously cited Minor and not Ark, as THE precedent on presidential eligibility. That's 27 different SCOTUS justices that were consistent and unanimous. Sandra Day O'Connor is irrelevant.

130 posted on 03/10/2013 11:05:33 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: edge919

No court has ruled Obama to be ineligible on the basis of the holding in Minor (or any other precedential ruling).
As the judge in Arizona said in Allen v Obama: “Contrary to plaintiff’s claims, Minor v Happersett does not hold otherwise.”


131 posted on 03/10/2013 11:42:47 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Passing time has shown/demonstrated that the Courts and Congress have not given squat to Obama’s eligibility to any other past court decisions. I wonder why.


132 posted on 03/10/2013 11:53:18 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

I think its because they believe that he was born at 7:24 pm on Friday, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. Birth announcements appeared in the August 13 & August 14, 1961 Honolulu newspapers and his father acknowledged paternity and birth location in an August 31, 1961 interview with the Immigration and Naturalization Service concerning his student visa extension.
In 2009, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 593 of the 111th Congress acknowledging Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a part of Hawaii’s 50th Anniversary of Statehood. The vote on House Res. 593 was 378-0.
As John Boehner succinctly put it: “The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there, that’s good enough for me.”

The courts haven’t acted in part because this is an eligibility challenge and none of the four people with standing to challenge his eligibility because they were denied the office, have ever filed suit: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan, the only other people to win electoral votes and have a legitimate chance at the office.


133 posted on 03/11/2013 1:16:57 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Ridiculous! McCain is not some esoteric example. If children born of US citizens serving in the armed forces overseas fall into some limbo in your system then your proposed system is idiotic. According to Vattel 217 they would be indigenous natives or natural born. According to the Constitution and US law they are natural born.
134 posted on 03/11/2013 5:41:12 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
A residence need not be maintained in the USA for two U.S. citizen parents in wedlock to have their child be a U.S. citizen at birth. They just had to have been residents of the USA before the birth of the child - as well as being citizens of the USA.

This is so that citizenship at birth will not be granted to the child of a U.S. citizen who never resided in the USA.

For example - if a couple of U.S. citizens had a child overseas that child would be a U.S. citizen at birth. But if that child NEVER resided in the USA but was an ‘expatriot’ with his parents his entire life - the child of that U.S. citizen who never resided in the USA (the expatriot citizen couple's grandchild) would not be eligible for US citizenship at birth based upon the U.S. citizenship of his parent who never resided in the USA.

135 posted on 03/11/2013 8:56:22 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
McCain was not born in the USA and he is a natural born citizen according to U.S. law,

B$. There was an attempt to declare him and Obama NBC through a Sense of the Senate resolution which is as legal as them declaring Wednesday the official green turkey day.

Since we surely are now citizens of the world as Obama claimed to be on his campaign tour, then let us put aside all those writings of those old white people, and move Forward.

136 posted on 03/11/2013 10:27:57 AM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
It makes no mention of any other type of U.S. citizen.

Lie much?

137 posted on 03/11/2013 10:32:45 AM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
So was Obama's.

Care to look how old she was, and how long she had lived within the United States. There were rules about such things when Obama was born.

But he77 why bother with that cr@p, when we can ignore the Constitution and get whatever we want, after all the other side does it.

138 posted on 03/11/2013 10:35:57 AM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
OK. Please show me where in the Constitution it mentions any type of U.S. citizen OTHER THAN...

citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

natural born citizen.

naturalized citizen.

This should be amusing.

139 posted on 03/11/2013 10:50:17 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

I can accept that the House voted as it did. However, what caught my attention was the comment by Boehner who often acts like what is good enough for him is/should be good enough for all people in the USA. As for me it is a matter of luck if Boehner and I agree.


140 posted on 03/11/2013 11:30:21 AM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

I can accept that the House voted as it did. However, what caught my attention was the comment by Boehner who often acts like what is good enough for him is/should be good enough for all people in the USA. As for me it is a matter of luck if Boehner and I agree.


141 posted on 03/11/2013 11:30:46 AM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Care to look how old she was, and how long she had lived within the United States. There were rules about such things when Obama was born.

Only if he wasn born overseas.

142 posted on 03/11/2013 12:33:04 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Ted Cruz is a "citizen at birth" because of the Congressional statue in place at the time of his birth. Without that, he wouldn't be a "citizen."

Per the Constitution, Congress has the power of "naturalization."

Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen at birth.

He's clearly not a "natural born Citizen."

143 posted on 03/11/2013 2:48:41 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
No court has ruled Obama to be ineligible on the basis of the holding in Minor (or any other precedential ruling).

Sorry, but this is an argument based on circular logic and doesn't mean that these courts were not in error. A lot of courts haven't heard the Minor argument and I'm pretty sure most haven't heard the Luria argument which shows that the Supreme Court recognized Minor as THE precedent on Art. II presidential eligibility.

As the judge in Arizona said in Allen v Obama: “Contrary to plaintiff’s claims, Minor v Happersett does not hold otherwise.”

Sorry, but wrong is still wrong no matter who said it. This judge doesn't give a legal basis for supporting his denial.

144 posted on 03/11/2013 8:23:15 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Ridiculous! McCain is not some esoteric example.

Nonsense. McCain is NOT president, so an example, he means nothing.

If children born of US citizens serving in the armed forces overseas fall into some limbo in your system then your proposed system is idiotic.

It's not a matter of limbo, but of having a court citation to follow. We have court citations that recognized all children born IN THE COUNTRY of citizen parents as natural-born citizens. We do NOT have a citation that affirms Vattel 217 regarding children born out of the country in the armies of the state.

145 posted on 03/11/2013 8:26:03 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
OK. Please show me where in the Constitution it mentions any type of U.S. citizen OTHER THAN...

citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

natural born citizen.

naturalized citizen.

This should be amusing.

Again, the OTHER types are in the 14th amendment of the Constitution ... persons "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

The SCOTUS ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that "subject to the jurisdiction" meant having permanent residence and domicil in the United States. In effect, the court said this only applied to the children of resident aliens because natural-born citizens were excluded from the operation of the birth clause of the 14th amendment. Thus, the birth clause is only operation for:

including all children here born of resident aliens

The SCOTUS cited a N.J. ruling for guidance on this point, respecting this cirumstance:

when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship

IOW, if the parents are NOT domiciled here, birth does NOT estblish a right to citizenship.

146 posted on 03/11/2013 8:36:09 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

“Permanent residence” is NOT required when there are TWO AmCit parents. the criteria is “place of general abode” (1907 Citizenship Act), “principal actual dwelling place without regard to intent”(Savorgnan v. United States). Literally, a moment of residence is all that is required........This is an anomaly that has existed in U.S. citizenship law since 1934. Unlike with ONE AmCit parent where the 10/5 or 5/2 year rule for residence or physical presence is the criteria, depending on birth year of the person.

In any event, Senator McCain is and always has been a U.S. citizen because both of his parents met the “had a residence” requirement of the 1940 Nationality Act - “.....and one of whom has ‘had a residence’.....”


147 posted on 03/17/2013 2:17:27 AM PDT by 940front
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: 940front

Yes, I agree with you.
Today it is the US State Department that gets to determine citizenship status and they use Title 8 of the US Code, Section 1401 “Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth.”


148 posted on 03/17/2013 9:46:40 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson