.
EAT IT JEFFERY!
Posted on 08/14/2013 5:45:12 AM PDT by Perdogg
The Constitution says that only "natural born citizens" are eligible to be president. Is Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas eligible, given that he was born in Canada of a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father?
If Cruz runs, 2016 will be the third consecutive election in which there were questions about the right of a major party candidate to serve. Unfortunately, the Framers left few clues about exactly what a "natural born citizen" is; Congress has not used the phrase in citizenship statutes since 1790.
(Excerpt) Read more at news4jax.com ...
Provide a link to your source, please.
I don’t have time to dig up the link right now. I’ll try and do so later.
In the meantime, you can go do a google books advanced search and find it for yourself.
If you find a second edition of Bayard’s exposition (1834 or later, the original was published in 1833), it’ll give you his complete text, including his discussion of Presidential eligibility, and it will also give you his notes that tell about the reaction he had from the top legal experts of his day. These wrote him letters approving his exposition of the Constitution.
The only disagreement that any of the experts expressed was from Chief Justice John Marshall, the Great Chief Justice who had dominated the Supreme Court for decades starting shortly after the Constitution was ratified. He noted that Congress didn’t need the “assent” of the States to build post and military roads. And of course, Bayard promptly corrected the mistake.
Bayard’s discussion on Presidential eligibility is quite prominent and COMPLETELY CLEAR. A person doesn’t have to be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen. He only need to be BORN A CITIZEN.
In this, he of course agrees absolutely with our other top legal expert William Rawle, who was crystal clear that children born on US soil of alien parents were natural born citizens. Again, they didn’t have to have citizen parents. They only had to be BORN A US CITIZEN in order to be a natural born citizen, and “entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
Don't bother. You have got to be the single most deceptive person it has EVER been my displeasure to come across in all my time on FR....bar NONE.
Would you like to know why I said 'don't bother'?
Here's the Google results for your *quote*
Gee, I wonder why all those lead to YOUR POSTS ON FR, Jeff? I wonder why this quote can't be found ANYWHERE else on the net.
Would you like to know what a LEGITMATE quote from Bayard looks like, Jeff?
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.'
A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183
-----
In the meantime, you can go do a google books advanced search and find it for yourself.
Do your own homework....and FOR THE SECOND TIME, REMOVE ME FROM YOUR PING LIST.
Anyone who twists the facts and truncates quotes in order to support a false argument has nothing to say that would interest me at all.
his father became an American citizen before Cruz was born.
No, his father didn’t become a citizen until 2005
Barry’s Daddy NEVER became a Citizen...
Nope. In fact, according to the 1963 Kenyan Constitution:
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1).
Chapter 6 - Citizenship - Section 87
Sorry DL. I meant to PING you to post #43 as well.
You, sir, have nailed it!!!! Mr. Rogers and I have had at it with some very stubborn people in this forum over the past but you made the finest argument in fewer words than I could have ever imagined.
re: “Gee, I wonder why all those lead to YOUR POSTS ON FR, Jeff? I wonder why this quote can’t be found ANYWHERE else on the net.”
Thank you for this info MamaTexan. Jeff Winston must have A LOT of time on his hands to post that quote so many times, and all on FR.
re: “Thank you for this info MamaTexan. Jeff Winston must have A LOT of time on his hands to post that quote so many times, and all on FR.”
Check out Post #42 and follow the Google link. The quote from Winston appears to be totally bogus.
re: “You, sir, have nailed it!!!! Mr. Rogers and I have had at it with some very stubborn people in this forum over the past but you made the finest argument in fewer words than I could have ever imagined.”
Check out post #43 and follow the Google link. Apparently Winston’s quote is bogus.
You are quite welcome.
The oldest post is just 2 days ago...and NONE of the posts are sourced.
But, then again, 'take my word for it' is SOP for some people.
(grin)
You're still spouting Bayard, and Ignoring John Marshall, except for that stupid tidbit you keep throwing in about how he didn't see anything wrong with the book.
Bayard is a LONG way from where the real authority lies. The REAL authority lies in the men who were Delegates to the Convention, and Delegates to the Ratification. Men like George Washington, (Against your position) Benjamin Franklin (Also Against your position) John Marshall, John Jay, John Adams, James Madison, James Monroe, John Armstrong, James Wilson and so on. All of these people are AGAINST your position. All you can drag up is petty little nobodies years after the fact and who have no first hand knowledge of the deliberations.
These obscure people you keep dragging up are just desperate attempts to find ANY authority to support you.
The Ugly truth for you is that YOU CAN"T FIND ANYONE BETTER THAN BAYARD OR RAWLE. ( And Bayard doesn't even support your position.)
.
EAT IT JEFFERY!
LOL! What descriptive can we use besides 'lame' to describe his argument? Gimpy? Prostate? Vegetative?
---
I did want to share this little tidbit I ran across the other day. It's a perfect explanation of the question of some of the Founders having more than one citizenship at the same time.
Apparently, it wasn't a dual citizenship, but a 'secondary' one established for the purpose of commerce.
And it had NO affect on the Allegiance of the primary, American citizenship, either.
There is, however, some relaxation of the old and stern rule of the common law, required and admitted under the liberal influence of commerce. Though a natural born subject cannot throw off his allegiance, and is always amenable for criminal acts against his native country, yet for commercial purposes he may acquire the rights of a citizen of another country, and the place of domicil determines the character of a party as to trade.
James Kent , Commentaries
OK, then. Are the candidates in question "the children of citizenS"?
Questions:
Are you opposed to the SCOTUS accepting an appeal on the matter?
Should they hear the matter of Constitutional eligibility on its merits, rather than rejecting the appeal on other grounds?
Do you think the SCOTUS ought to end this wrangling once and for all, one way or the other?
Is this issue important enough for them?
You are the stubborn ones. We are the correct ones. There is no "give" to our position because it is factually correct. Yours is not, therefore YOU are the stubborn ones.
Jeff didn't nail it. He was nailed.
(Jeff's condition depicted below.)
MamaTexan produced a rebuttal that boxed him so hard his kids' ears will be ringing for two generations.
(Ear ringing Condition of Jeff's Kids depicted below.) 
I think I have personally seen every one of them. Jeff has been going on this Bayard kick for quite some time, and it makes even less sense than his USUAL tactic of posting a massive wall of text and claiming that everything in it supports his position 100,0000 %.
Bayard's position does not actually support his, and you have to do logical flip flops to get Bayard's position anywhere near what Jeff claims.
Now that I think about it, I think i've seen that quote MamaTexan posted before. I think I have a link saved for it, but I never thought much of it because I kept thinking "Who the H3ll is Bayard? And why should anyone consider his opinion significant?"
Since Jeff's been going Bayard! Bayard! Bayard! Like a barking dog, I can honestly say that i'm glad he will finally shut up about Bayard.
(Barking Dog Jeff depicted below.)
Bayard! Bayard! Bayard!
When you're trying to sift for the truth through the revisonistic lens of history, you have to keep all the nuggets you can. Even the obscure ones.
And after twelve years....boy, do I have quite a few nuggets!
Does that make me a hoarder? LOL!
No, I think LIE will suffice. Jeff routinely twists ANYTHING into a claim that it supports his position.
John Bingham is still pissed at him for his twisting of his words.
(John Bingham Pissed off at Jeff, depicted below.)
Sir! How dare you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, it wasn't a dual citizenship, but a 'secondary' one established for the purpose of commerce.
That is interesting. I understand the concept. I have seen it referred to elsewhere as "local allegiance", but it is as you say, always held secondary to ones actual allegiance. It is axiomatic that the topic of "Natural born" refers to primary allegiance.
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.