Skip to comments.Sen. Rand Paul: My filibuster was just the beginning
Posted on 03/08/2013 4:19:32 PM PST by Dacula
click here to read article
Oh well, interesting that the US deported those two to
occupied Germany though.
My hard left friends were cheering Paul.
Paul earned my respect just for standing in there and DOING something.
A caller in to Rush, yesterday, said that his lib and even gay friends (up in the NE somewhere) were cheering Rand on, too.
See? No *reaching across the aisle, compromising or pandering* necessary!
Rand has both parties shared S-Less.
I mean scared S-less.
Cruz believes it in his heart, and does not get rowed up with sideshows.
He stays steadfast.
We could use more like him.
Cruz’s parents were both American citizens at the time of his birth.
If My wife dropped a Son while we were in Italy, would my child be any less of an American citizen?
We would have a canoli, celebrate and go home.
An uncomfortable moment.
“Wouldnt it be nice if we had a choice in the next presidential election?”
Watch for Jeb Bush and the GOP-e to “dig up the dirt” on Mr. Paul when the primary season heats up...
JCB...if you will allow me to offer this alternative view, that Natural Born Citizen means having been a citizen at birth, as opposed to having later acquired citizenship through the immigration and naturalization process. If this is correct, that would mean that being born on a certain soil is not the key factor, Which would mean that the parental status would rule, not the soil of birth.
In terms of his parents’ citizenship status...I read that his mother was unquestionably an American at her birth, and that his Cuban father had become a citizen by the immigration and naturalization process by the time Cruz was born.
I have read those here who insist that both parents have to be citizens in order to confer citizenhip on the child. I don’t know the truth of this, but that was at issue with some in regard to Obama’s eligibility.
Others I’ve read say that only the birth Mother has to be a citizen in order to confer natural-born citizenship on the child, if she is at least 18 yrs of age.
In any event, I encourage everyone to withhold judgement on this until we know absolutely. Also to keep in mind that legal expert Mr. Cruz himself has replied, when asked, that he believes he is eligible.
(In terms of being born on a certain soil...we know about anchor babies. A woman who is not a citizen, comes to America and gives birth and the child is considered a citizen by being born on this soil. I have seen this disputed...not everyone agrees that these should be considered citizens, but regardless, a child in this situation is NOT a natural born citizen eligible to run for President. The parental status would rule against that, even if you accept the anchor baby concept.)
And we've been through similar circumstances with other candidates including John McCain and George Romney. Cruz can cruise if he so desires.
Great art work!
It is interesting that those who are threatened the most by Rand’s Filibuster are the ones that squeal the loudest.
Time to cut out these two Left Wing GOP Elite pigs, and run them over a couple of handy political cliffs.
The Canal Zone was not sovereign territory when McCain was born. In any case it would not matter because he was born outside the zone in a public hospital.
McCain was not NBC nor is Rubio or Cruz.
McCain was deemed eligible by a Sense of the Senate Resolution and that does not supersede the Constitution.
Do not let mylife confuse the issue. In any case it doesnt really matter anymore since we no longer are a Constitutional Republic.
Are you telling me that if me and my wife are American citizens and we go abroad for holiday, and she gives birth to a child that child is not American?
So US soil is what makes you American?
Jose and Guadeloupe can run the border, squirt out a kid and they have rights but mine does not?
Cruz, Mike Lee and Ghomert were terrific....true Conservatives and Patriots. Kirk is a RINO..votes more often with the left than not. Durbin is his best buddy. In the end, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Louie Ghomert and others voted against Brennan....and Kirk the Traitor voted FOR Brennan. He can take his tea and candy and shove it.
Well he did just have a stroke, lOL!
His stroke has nothing to do with how he votes...he was voting left before his stroke, and since he did appear at the filibuster and make a supportive gesture toward Rand Paul, I thought for sure THIS TIME he would do the right thing and vote AGAINST Brennan. Wrong, again!
Whether his gesture was cynical or not, I kinda liked it.
He gave Rand the Mr Smith goes to Washington dinner break.
Rand Paul was moved.
Bitch at him, not me.
No one is “bitching.”
You're entitled to your opinion, and so am I.
Anyone born in America to two citizen parents (plural) is without doubt a natural born citizen regardless of his parents history provided they were both American citizens at the time of his birth. As to the status of anyone else I have no comment except that much of what people say is based on very little or nothing. It all seems now to boil down to whether the candidate runs as a D or an R, there are no obstacles to running as a D but running for president as anything other than a D at this time is akin to trying to run across the North American continent from ocean to ocean on one foot without stopping.
I spent a great deal of time on this issue but have more or less withdrawn from it because of all the emotion, irrationality and deliberate obfuscation going on. Plus, so many just cannot grasp key distinctions.
There is no doubt that a child born abroad to two US citizens is himself or herself a US citizen also. This is the law of our land. So, that thought is incorrect, whoever is making such a suggestion.
It can be said that original intent was for such individuals born abroad to be regarded as natural born citizens also, as an Act was passed in 1790 stating as much, with many of those involved in writing, sponsoring and passing that Act being Founders of this nation. The Constitution had just been ratified the year before, after all.
That Act was modified and replaced in 1795, however. The language was identical save the deletion of the critical words "natural born." There is a curious lack of historical documentation to detail the reasoning and purpose of having done this, but the result has been that citizens born abroad, not in service to the State, have been legally held to be citizens since then, but that is not to say that such citizens are regarded as natural born citizens.
Why? What did or does this mean? The term only has legal import for those who aspire to be elected to the Executive branch of Federal government. It's a status acquired due to circumstance and parentage at birth that confers eligibility to be elected President, and in turn Vice President, since the VP of necessity must be capable of assuming that Office.
So, we see that intent was one thing but practical reality dictated another in very short order, as far as circumstance of birth and any consideration of such a birth being regarded as natural born for purposes of eligibility to hold elected office in the Executive branch of the Federal government.
Again, we return to why? What does it mean? In order to begin to find an answer, one must turn to the many court cases dealing with the matter. There aren't any US Supreme Court cases dealing explicitly with the issue of Presidential eligibility, it's just never been put before the court and in fact has not even been pursued legally before now. There are a good five or six that speak to the meaning of natural born citizen though, and so it's to those cases that we must turn to gain a good understanding.
First and foremost among these would be Minor v. Happersett. The case dealt with women's suffrage, with Virginia Minor suing for the right to vote. Virginia Minor was considered to be a natural born citizen, according to the definition provided by USSC Chief Justice Waite. He elaborated that there is never doubt regarding such with an individual born in the country to parents who are citizens. Never any doubt. Doubt is a key word, here, because he himself goes further to say that "some authorities go further" in including individuals born in the country regardless of parental citizenship. Of these there are doubts, but never as to the first, he says, meaning those born in the country to two citizen parents.
This is just touching the surface, but it's sufficient background to begin to form a framework around the meaning of the term. Circumstance of birth, while perhaps not initially intended to disqualify an individual from election to the Executive Office, clearly became a concern very early on, to the point of rescinding, modifying and replacing the very first Act pertaining to citizenship. Something about being born abroad was deemed a problem for a President and Commander-in-Chief of the US military. What might that be? Remember, we're talking about legal distinctions, here.
Then we have the domestic USSC cases with Minor being the prime example. The doubt there centered around a parent or parents who were not themselves citizens, which is to say that they were subject to a different jurisdiction, a different set of laws, some other recognized sovereign entity, a foreign government.
Taken together, these indicate that the natural born status is affected by the legal presence of a foreign sovereignty. What does that have to do with the birth of a child? Well, legally, everything. We claim births within our country as citizens. We make a legal claim of authority upon that child. Other nations do as well. They make a legal claim of authority upon a child born within their jurisdiction, the territory covered by their governance and their laws.
Why is this a problem, why is there doubt regarding some that apparently required resolution in several instances, two of which are listed above?
They both exhibit concern over individuals legally beholden to a foreign government. Laws regarding citizenship at birth vary from country to country. Some claim everyone born to their citizens as citizens also, regardless of which country in which a child might be born. We do, so do most others. Citizenship is a legal claim of authority by a sovereign government. Such authority exerts legally recognized, enforceable control over an individual.
Some claim all born within the area of their legal control, their jurisdiction, their sovereignty, as citizens. We do. Others do, too. It's a claim of authority and an ability to control that is legally recognized, internationally.
Some nations go yet further still, exerting multigenerational claims of authority over descendants of citizens, or even a specific type of person. Ireland and Israel spring to mind, but they're not the only ones.
All these competing claims of legal authority and control create uncertainty and... doubt. There's that word again. I've concluded that the unresolved doubts to which Chief Justice Waite referred pertain to just how birth circumstance and/or parentage would affect a given individual, were he or she to pursue election to the Presidency. The Presidency is the only place where being natural born or not matters one iota under the law.
The clear trend over time, as far as an answer for those who fall into this area of doubt, has been to say "it depends," that there are potential complicating factors. Those potential complicating factors are introduced by any claims of a foreign government as well as the nature of those claims.
Legally, an individual beholden in any internationally recognized way to a foreign country, was precluded from the Presidency. That is what it means. Sometimes, there is no claim upon a foreign birth, sometimes there is.
Well, in the case of Cruz, His parents were clearly American (Texas) citizens working Calgary oil fields in the service of US Commerce and the American dream. In the case of Barry Obama, his Piss Poor excuse of a Pappy was clearly a Kenyan working the US education system for himself. Obama Sr had no allegiance to the USA. That is the crux of Barry's ineligibility.
Crux’s Father Became a citizen and enthusiastically said “is this a great country, or what?!!”
Obama’s Father never took citizenship, took advantage of our generosity, got drunk and waved his dick around while talking **** about America.
Obama has so many areas of doubt and potential conflict in this regard that it's difficult to know where to begin. The reality is so wacky it beggars belief, which has been used to advantage to discredit opposition and to confuse the public.
Obama, Sr. can plausibly be claimed to have been an official of a foreign government while here as a student. His own citizenship is a tangle due to the dissolution of the British Empire, but the upshot of it all means that the UK claimed sovereignty at birth upon the individual known today as Barack Hussein Obama, due to his being born to a subject, yes they were still subjects then.
Then we have his adoption, introducing another foreign claim of sovereignty. Then, the passport kerfluffle. There's so much spin and obfuscation there, so much misdirection over that one. I think he just got an Indonesian passport and traveled under it, which became a problem once it was determined he was running for President, then came the wild disinfo campaign.
Then, the foreign student thing, smoke there too, all records sealed.
Obama was not natural born eight ways from Sunday, imho, regardless of where he came into this world.
Canada made NO claims on him and he made NO claims on Canada.
Conversely, Obama’s life was a convoluted mess of claims as to lineage and allegiance.
End of story
As an aside, Stephan Harper is Clearly an Canadian through and through, but I would vote for him as US President in a heartbeat over Barack Buttstain Obama.
God Speed Ted Cruz.
I don’t think you can make a blanket statement like that so easily regarding any claim Canada might have upon Cruz, but he has lived his life as an American and citizen of the United States.
That cannot be said of Obama.
Yes, but I believe the hopsital in Colon Panama is not. That leaves the fact that we all now know....
McCain was a Colon birth.
McCain was proudly flying his Colon flag just yesterday.
Seriously though, regardless of the on or off base controversy, the Canal Zone was not under the full jurisdiction of the United States. It was not sovereign territory, it was merely leased. If indeed it were sovereign territory, cam someone please explain how Jimmy Carter could just up and decide to cede it to Panama? He couldn’t. That is not a power of the Executive Branch.
No it does not, but law does. You know full well things have changed over the centuries ad there are abundant case law and regulations that define citizenship.
The law that was in affect when Obama was born would definitely rule him out as NBC, probably even Citizen, but depending on what actions he took in later years he could indeed be a naturalized citizen.
Idiots within the Justice department and Idiots in Congress have muddied the waters considerably.
The little dance that the Senate pulled off to Deem McCain eligible was just that, a little dance, it was deigned to bring Obama into the fold, without question.
When Freepers begin to argue irrelevant case law and ignore common sense then the Republic is lost and those of us in the older population should just be thankful we will not live to see the worst of what is to come, and it will come.
No, and I never have. But you should do a little reading since laws change over time.
You have had this explained to you so many times it is just silly to re-plow that ground.
You have been crying about your foreign born children so long that I was sure they would have already had a Presidential Campaign Pac by now.
Please attempt to separate you own position out of the argument and focus on what the law and regulations were when Obama was born. He would not have even been a citizen for a number of reasons, no matter where he was born. The fact that the GOPe refused to even bring up the issue does not make their contention legal, just unchallenged and de-facto legal. Sadly the law is whatever a Judge says it is.
Again, this is contrary to the 14th. The only ones who qualified for natural born citizenship under the 14th, made those born on what retroactively became US territory citizens of the United States from birth. This is why the 14th is so important.
The 14th is very clear that for someone to become a natural born citizen that they must be born either in territory controlled by the US, (ie, Guam, the Canal Zone), at the time of their birth, or they are born in one of the 50 states, or they were born in territory controlled by the US on the date of the 14th amendment’s passage and were grandfathered, much as the Founders had been earlier.
Cruz does not fulfill this condition as a natural born citizen. He is a citizen, a naturalized citizen, but not one who is natural born.
“In terms of being born on a certain soil...we know about anchor babies. A woman who is not a citizen, comes to America and gives birth and the child is considered a citizen by being born on this soil. I have seen this disputed...not everyone agrees that these should be considered citizens, but regardless, a child in this situation is NOT a natural born citizen eligible to run for President.”
You might consider the child not a natural born citizen. The 14th says otherwise.
Unfortunately your position is contrary to the constitution which, after the 14th amendment states that the only requirement is to be born on American soil.
If you study the origins of the peculiar phrase, Natural Born Citizen, which is set forth only once in our Constitution, you'll understand that the Framers used it to raise the bar on the citizenship qualifications for the office of President, beyond those required of any other office in the federal government.
That was done intentionally by them, and for very good reasons -- reasons which are now playing out on our national stage. The man now holding the office of US President does not have the sort of natural affinity and inbred allegiance to America that the Framers intended. No, his allegiance is to ideals which are foreign and repugnant to the Constitution, and the American culture.
It can be argued that being born on US soil to two American citizen parents isn't any guarantee that a President will carry out his duties faithfully, and in adherence to the Constitution, but the NBC clause is good insurance that they will. I'm afraid it's the best they could do. The rest is up to the people.
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.