Ted Cruz, Originalism, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement

I’m not asking your opinion.

You in 376 agree that 301(a) does not declare an individual to be a natural born citizen.

You know that Article II specifies natural born citizen.

You know the law you cite does not support your claim. Focus on the law as written. It specifies “citizen”. It is a naturalization statute. What if this statute did not exist?

You in 376 agree that 301(a) does not declare an individual to be a natural born citizen.

It doesn't declare them to be citizens of the state they live in, either.

But if they are US citizens, then they are also citizens of the State they live in.

So it says they're a US citizen. It doesn't explicitly state that they are a STATE citizen. But by implication, as long as they actually live in a State, they are.

And if they are BORN US citizens, then that almost certainly makes them "NATURAL BORN" citizens, and eligible to be President.

But go on. Ignore all the stuff that's going on that's the really important stuff, and the stuff on which people might actually make a difference. You could be calling your Congressman and demanding an independent special prosecutor to look into the Obama Adminstration's various abuses of power.

But no. You'd rather waste people's time on a stupid fantasy without any basis in history or law, and without the slightest hope of doing any good whatsoever.

Now I’m sure that you understand and I’m happy to read that you have acknowledged that the original jurisdiction judge in Purpura & Moran v. Obama did indeed include cited legal precedent in his opinion.

You need to review what I said earlier which was:

We've already discussed Purpura elsewhere. The court's claims are not backed up by any legal citations, while the principle I'm talking about was brought up first in Shanks v. Dupont, affirmed in U.S. v. Rhodes and then affirmed again by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

You avoided posting any direct citations, and now we see why. The few sentences this court quoted do not back up its claims. As I said, the only thing that even mentions natural-born citizen is from a citation that makes Obama a British subject.

Perhaps you’ll also be interested to learn that when a three judge panel of the New Jersey Appellate Court was asked to review the Purpura, Moran v. Obama decision, their affirmation of the initial ruling stated, in part: “We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s THOROUGH and THOUGHTFUL written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.”

Why would this be interesting?? It's a blanket statement that also fails to give any direct legal citations that supports it claims. There's no compelling argument here. You keep proving my point over and over and over for me. br

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.