Two Candidates NOT Born in the US Received Electoral Votes in 1796 Presidential Election [vanity]

me ^ | 21 Feb 2016 | me

[Redmen4ever]

By such thinking, we got the Dred Scott decision.

[Godebert]

I rearely use personal insults on this forum, but in your case I must make an exception.

You're an idiot.

[WhiskeyX]

“You have no idea who I’ve helped elect and who I’ve voted for, which means you have no basis for these stupid, inane statements here on FreeRepublic.”

That is more nonsense talk from you. If you voted for Mitt Romney, a person ineligible to serve as President, you helped to elect Obama. If you voted for John McCain in the primary and/or the general election, you helped to put Obama in office. If you voted for Ronald Reagan and H. George W. Bush, you helped H. George Bush and George W. Bush to become President, which made it possible for Obama to become President. If you voted for Richard Nixon, you helped John Ford and Jimmy Carter to become President. If you voted for any of those Presidents, you helped a number of their social welfare policies and the justices they appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court to wreck the Constitution. The long long list goes on. Meanwhile, you propose to continue the corruption by your support of Ted Cruz, who along with his father have a history of lies, deceit, and unethical conduct. So, don’t tell me I have no way of knowing who and what you voted for, when it plainly obvious few people who have ever voted for a Republican or a Democrat can escape being associated with some degree of responsibility for allowing their corrupt leadership to remain present in the U.S. Government.

“Oh, I see ... so that must mean it’s OK.”

Of course it does not “mean it’s OK.” On the contrary, it means such corruption is not acceptable and it is not total as you falsely claimed by misleadingly saying all were so in a false bit of hyperbole.

“The Constitution clearly spells out a process through which the U.S. military is to deter and combat foreign military forces. The U.S. government has spent several trillion dollars on military campaigns all over the globe since World War II — none of them involving a formal declaration of war as required by the U.S. Constitution.”

The Constitution has never required a formal declaration of war in order to authorize the use of military force. That is just another of those commonly repeated fantasies exactly opposed to reality. A formal declaration of war is just one of many kinds of belligerency, and it happens to be the one of those several kinds of belligerency which has been granted as a power of the Congress in addition to all of the other types. The people who keep making this fallacious claim are just displaying their ignorance of the subject.

“How many military facilities did the U.S. have in foreign countries when the Constitution was ratified?”

The United States at the time the Constitution was ratified had no Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Revenue Marine, other than the state militia; and this was due to the fact the nation was financially insolvent after the expenditures for the American Revolutionary War and the lack of funding under the Articles of Confederation. As a consequence of having no military forces during this period, the United States and its citizens were subjected to a variety of aggressions for which it had no effective means of responding in self defense. As a consequence, the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and Revenue-Marine were organized in response to the need for domestic and foreign military and naval operations.

“And what ways would that be?”

Ted Cruz worked hard to find various means of allowing illegal aliens to remain in the United States while working for the Bush Administration.

“Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and William Breyer cited foreign laws and court decisions in several “gay rights” and death penalty cases back as far back as 2005. Are you suggesting that these foreign legal precedents have any place in U.S. law? Justice Scalia didn’t think so. His dissent in these cases was clear: “The basic premise of the court’s argument — that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world — ought to be rejected out of hand.””

You had better stay away from law and politics because you have the whole subject muddled up so badly you haven’t got a clue what your are talking about. I say this because you are confusing two wholly different arguments and jumping to a fantastically wrong conclusion as a consequence. Past case law and past statutory laws are cited in legal cases whether or not they are used to confirm or deny any given part of the case before the court of law. A citation is the reference to a source of law and legal literature. Whether or not a given citation of law is going to be used as a basis of deciding for or against the case is up to the presiding judge/s and the trier of the case, such as a jury. The authority of American common law and the Law of Nations, which is of course foreign international law, and the laws authorizing the Constitution itself are all enshrined in the Constitution. While you can oppose and deny the authority of individual foreign legal precedents on the basis of their being inapplicable and/or contrary to U.S. law, you certainly cannot go around denying the existence and the authority of foreign law precedents being the origin and foundation of United States law that is often still applicable in today’s U.S. courts without revealing yourself to be some kind of ignorant screwball.

“I’ll stand with the late Justice Scalia on this one, dude — no matter how “ignorant and silly” you think this is.”

You are falsely portraying Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and his position. Only some forms of foreign laws are applicable as precedents in a U.S. course of law, and that is only when they are among the Law of Nations and common law authorized by the Constitution. Naturally, foreign laws that are recognized by the Constitution and foreign laws not authorized by the Constitution must be cited in the arguments for and against in any given case. Your argument against citing foreign laws is like saying you cannot write a theme paper, dissertation, or book that includes citations of other foreign publications. That is why your comment is ignorant and an irrational assertion.

[Alberta's Child]

That is more nonsense talk from you. If you voted for Mitt Romney, a person ineligible to serve as President, you helped to elect Obama. If you voted for John McCain in the primary and/or the general election, you helped to put Obama in office. If you voted for Ronald Reagan and H. George W. Bush, you helped H. George Bush and George W. Bush to become President, which made it possible for Obama to become President. If you voted for Richard Nixon, you helped John Ford and Jimmy Carter to become President. If you voted for any of those Presidents, you helped a number of their social welfare policies and the justices they appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court to wreck the Constitution. The long long list goes on. Meanwhile, you propose to continue the corruption by your support of Ted Cruz, who along with his father have a history of lies, deceit, and unethical conduct. So, don't tell me I have no way of knowing who and what you voted for, when it plainly obvious few people who have ever voted for a Republican or a Democrat can escape being associated with some degree of responsibility for allowing their corrupt leadership to remain present in the U.S. Government.

I have never voted for any of the individuals you have listed here. So your description of my statement as "nonsense talk" is irresponsible and idiotic. On that basis alone I have no interest in wasting my time with you.

You are falsely portraying Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and his position.

How can I possibly be "falsely portraying" Justice Scalia and his position when I quoted from his own dissent in one of those cases? Did Justice Antonin Scalia falsely portray himself and his position on these matters?

You sound like someone who thinks we haven't had a legitimate form of government in years ... probably since the Whiskey Rebellion in the early 1790s. Even if you're right, you're probably wasting your time here on FreeRepublic because there's no cure for that.

[SatinDoll]

My friend was born, in Mexico, during the 1950s. She did not have dual citizenship. She was Mexican until she naturalized as a U.S. citizen in the 1970s.

[little jeremiah]

Because of the grandfather clause. And no one born before the establishment of the United States of America was born in the USA. ‘Cause it didn’t exist.

[little jeremiah]

Placemark for excellent NBC info.

[Redmen4ever]

“Rare” - you admit you call people idiots. Next time, take the 5th Amendment. Americans do not have to incriminate themselves.

[Redmen4ever]

You must think I don’t know the law. With regard to persons born overseas to U.S. citizen parents, the Congress has the power to determine whether they are citizens at birth and to determine what they might have to do to not lose that citizenship. This was spelled out in Rogers v Bellei, concerning a person who was born overseas of one U.S. citizen parent and was a citizen at birth, but who lost his citizenship for not fulfilling the requirements. The Congress in its wisdom has changed these requirements over the years, so it would require a lot of work on my part to speak with specificity as to the case you mention. Nevertheless, a friend of mine, now retired, would have been happy to represent a person such as you described in a claim to be a U.S. citizen.

Does it surprise you that the Donald is now questioning Marco Rubio’s qualification as a natural born citizen?

[Redmen4ever]

Are you saying that persons born to Panamian-citizens in the Canal Zone were U.S. citizens by place of birth?

Only persons born to U.S. citizen parents there were U.S. citizens at birth. For Constitutional purposes, it was “overseas.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone#Citizenship

Now, think of Guantanamo. Do you see why detainees are sent there? Being leased and not sovereign U.S. territory, it’s in a kind of a Constitutional no man’s land.

[PJBankard]

No, both of McCains parents were US citizens with his father being stationed there in the US Navy.

[WhiskeyX]

“I have never voted for any of the individuals you have listed here. So your description of my statement as “nonsense talk” is irresponsible and idiotic. On that basis alone I have no interest in wasting my time with you.”

You want to pretend its nonsense, but you are still a participant in allowing the corruption to take place even if you never voted for a Democrat or Republican President. By voting for candidates in other political parties you have contributed to the election victory of one of the Democrat or Republican candidates by withholding your vote from the losing Democrat or Republican candidate. So, unless you are a foreign citizen, you cannot escape some form of responsibility for the presence of those U.S. leaders in the U.S. Government, even if you never vote at all.

“How can I possibly be “falsely portraying” Justice Scalia and his position when I quoted from his own dissent in one of those cases? Did Justice Antonin Scalia falsely portray himself and his position on these matters?”

Evidently you are too dense to understand the English language, understand how to write a theme paper, or even read a publication with cited sources. Otherwise, you would understand there is no way Associate Justice Antonin Scalia would go around denying Blackstone’s Commentaries and the Roman law were a part of U.S. jurisprudence. It really is a stupid position for you to be taking, and that is putting it very very mildly.

“You sound like someone who thinks we haven’t had a legitimate form of government in years ... probably since the Whiskey Rebellion in the early 1790s. Even if you’re right, you’re probably wasting your time here on FreeRepublic because there’s no cure for that.”

You sure do live in some kind of make believe fantasy like Alice in Wonderland. Try cracking open Black’s Law Dictionary and try explaining when the Roma law inside that publication ceased to be used by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Alberta's Child]

You want to pretend its nonsense, but you are still a participant in allowing the corruption to take place even if you never voted for a Democrat or Republican President. By voting for candidates in other political parties you have contributed to the election victory of one of the Democrat or Republican candidates by withholding your vote from the losing Democrat or Republican candidate. So, unless you are a foreign citizen, you cannot escape some form of responsibility for the presence of those U.S. leaders in the U.S. Government, even if you never vote at all.

So let me get this straight ...

1. If I vote for a Democrat I'm responsible for the corruption in our government.

2. If I vote for a Republican I'm responsible for the corruption in our government.

3. If I vote for a third-party candidate I'm responsible for the corruption in our government.

4. If I don't vote at all I'm responsible for the corruption in our government.

OK -- I see how this works.

So how many elected officials have you assassinated since you were old enough to vote? If the answer is none, then I'll just conclude that you're posting crap here simply because you're a malcontent.

[LucyT]

conservativejoy

Pinging you to # 57 .

[COBOL2Java]

Here is the key, when the Constitution was written, it said that anyone that was here when the Constitution was written is eligible. Basically if you busted your butt to help us win the war, you can be President.

"Cruz was here when the Constitution was written! As the Anointed One, the Lord God Jehova took him back in time to 1787 and he met the signers!"

[LucyT]

Another comment:

What I have questions about is his mothers citizenship at the time she moved to Canada. She was divorced from a Brit with the name of Wilson. I read an article about him: he is living in England and so is their daughter. Unfortunately I cannot remember their first names.

It sounds as though Eleanor Darragh Wilson may have become a British subject which would have enabled her to start a business in Canada, as only Canadians or British Subjects could have started a business in Canada.