Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CRUZ releases birth certificate
Dallas Morning News ^ | 8-18-13 | Todd Gillman

Posted on 08/19/2013 6:05:19 AM PDT by praytell

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last
To: rxsid
It was repealed (replaced) in order to update and clarify the will of Congress with regards to their Constitutionally enumerated power to define the rules of naturalization.
101 posted on 08/19/2013 11:25:38 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

President George Washington and almost half of the Framers of the Constitution say you're wrong.

And James Bayard, backed by Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor James Kent, and other leading legal experts of the early United States - says absolutely and categorically that you're wrong.

And of course John Bingham himself NEVER, EVER said that persons born US citizens abroad were ineligible. He NEVER, EVER said it took birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. You can only twist his words to what you want them to have meant, when he described "natural born citizens" as "citizens by birth," when he himself stood absolutely silent and without any objection at all in the House chamber while James Falconer Wilson quoted Rawle's quote that absolutely contradicts your birther crap, and when he and our other Congressmen deliberately dropped the wording you think "proves" your point and substituted "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

So why don't you take your anti-Ted-Cruz, trolling birther crap some place else?

102 posted on 08/19/2013 11:33:11 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

What is nonsense is your attempt to deny Congress a power expressly reserved to them by the Constitution.

You should also take into account the last sentence of Article 1 Section 8:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

But enough of me citing the Constitution, historical facts, and laws of the land. Your turn to start citing references to support your position.


103 posted on 08/19/2013 11:33:52 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Dual citizenship does not disqualify anyone for President.

If it did, George Washington would have had to renounce his French citizenship or step down, and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would never have been elected.

104 posted on 08/19/2013 11:34:52 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Everything you have stated is utter nonsense. Ted Cruz is not eligible. He was born on foreign soil outside the jurisdiction of the United States. A dual citizen is not a natural born Citizen.


105 posted on 08/19/2013 11:35:52 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Congress has no Constitutional authority to makes laws as to who may be a "natural born Citizen."

It's really not very difficult here.

Naturalization.

That's it.

There are no other citizenship powers given to Congress.

106 posted on 08/19/2013 11:36:19 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
One of the arguments that have been put forward as a reason why Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be president is that dual citizenship negates natural born citizenship.

It does not. (See post 104).

It would probably be a good idea for Ted Cruz to specifically renounce any claim to Canadian citizenship. But there is no legal requirement for him to do so in order to be eligible. Being born a United States citizen is enough.

107 posted on 08/19/2013 11:37:51 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

So lets break this down into specific quesitions:

Do you agree that someone who is a US citizen at birth is not naturalized but in fact, was naturally born a US Citizen?

Do you agree that someone born on US soil/jurisdiction is a US Citizen at birth?

Do you agree that US Citizenship at birth can be obtained even if born outside the boundaries of the United States?


108 posted on 08/19/2013 11:39:11 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

You are incorrect. The Constitution does not limit Congress to just one type of rules. I states “Rules of Naturalization” which include those who need naturalization and those that do not need naturalization (naturally born citizen).

But enough of me citing the Constitution, historical facts and the laws of the land. Time for you to starting citing references to support your position.


109 posted on 08/19/2013 11:42:32 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
Everything you have stated is utter nonsense. Ted Cruz is not eligible. He was born on foreign soil outside the jurisdiction of the United States. A dual citizen is not a natural born Citizen.

As for dual citizenship, 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens, while serving as President. Nobody cared.

As for the other:

"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1833)

The above quote was part of Bayard's discussion of qualifications to be President and Presidential eligibility.

Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was read and approved by the Great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and by the famous Chancellor James Kent, as well as other legal experts of the early United States.

Not one single person ever said he was wrong about his understanding of what "natural born citizen" meant.

110 posted on 08/19/2013 11:44:07 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(b); (66 Stat. 163, 236)

Cruz is defined by law “citizen”


111 posted on 08/19/2013 11:45:06 AM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii
My son can not be President of the United States as he is a dual national with dual allegiance.

It would be smart for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship, but there is no legal requirement for him to do so.

3 of our first 4 Presidents - Washington, Jefferson and Madison - were dual citizens with France. While serving as US President.

112 posted on 08/19/2013 11:47:41 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Dual citizenship does not interfere with natural born citizenship, particularly when it is acquired at birth. That is precisely Senator Cruz’s situation.


113 posted on 08/19/2013 11:54:58 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/40/naturalization

Now, where's your source that says Congress's naturalization powers apply to "natural born Citizens?"

114 posted on 08/19/2013 11:56:00 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
"Dual citizenship does not interfere with natural born citizenship, particularly when it is acquired at birth. That is precisely Senator Cruz’s situation."

Of course it does.

Have you not read Federalist 68? Or Jay's letter to Washington?

Just where, in those conversations, did they believe it was okay for someone born with foreign citizenship, and foreign allegiance owed, to be eligibly for Commander in Chief?

115 posted on 08/19/2013 11:58:23 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; taxcontrol
You are advocating a theory that leaves the meaning permanently open ended. In other words, it means whatever congress says it means. That is nonsense. It has a fixed meaning that was understood in 1787 and cannot be changed by Congress by passing a law.

And that meaning was revealed when in 1790, George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, and the Congress, many of whom helped produce the Constitution just 3 years earlier, decided to pass and sign the Naturalization Law of 1790 in which they used the expression "natural born citizen" to describe a child born overseas to US citizen parents.

That is a fact. It is an irreversible fact. The Founders used natural born citizen to describe a born overseas citizen.

One off the cuff remark many make at this information is that Congress repealed the 1790 law and replaced it with the 1795 law. First, that has nothing to do with the fact that Congress saw fit to use the term "natural born citizen" to describe a "born overseas citizen".

Second, Most laws that are replaced are repealed. The replacement was much more lengthy and detailed.

Significantly, though, when Congress was making the initial laws of the land, when they had to be concise, precise, and get right to the most important issues, they recognized bloodline citizenship as natural born citizenship.

116 posted on 08/19/2013 12:05:37 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

“3 of our first 4 Presidents - Washington, Jefferson and Madison - were dual citizens with France. While serving as US President.”

Of course they were since they grandfathered themselves in. Jeez!


117 posted on 08/19/2013 12:08:41 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

“3 of our first 4 Presidents - Washington, Jefferson and Madison - were dual citizens with France. While serving as US President.”

Of course they were since they grandfathered themselves in. Jeez!


118 posted on 08/19/2013 12:08:46 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

No.

Does not matter to subject.

Does not matter to subject.

Just look at the situation with collectively NATURALIZED citizens of Puerto Rico as to how one can can be a ‘citizen at birth’ but still not be a natural born Citizen. The two are not one in the same no matter how much it is desired that that they are. Collective naturalization nullifies the argument completely.

As for Mr. Cruz the article states his birth was registered with the US consulate. What if he had not been? Would he still had been a US citizen?

Why does the referenced website indicate BOTH parents must be Citizens to be a citizen AT birth when born outside US boundaries? Is the website incorrect?


119 posted on 08/19/2013 12:15:43 PM PDT by bluecat6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

Foreign influence in the government was a primary concern of the Framers, especially for the singular office of the Executive.

Framers were also concerned about “illiberality” in the admission of foreigners - they wanted to people the land.

Separating the qualifications for citizenship from the qualifications for office was the solution.

After months of discussion the qualifications for the Executive were at an impasse, no qualification seemed secure from foreign influence, until Jay’s “strong check” suggestion that the Executive “shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

“Natural born citizenship” is not a source of citizenship, it is a quality of citizenship required for an office of government: the Presidency.


120 posted on 08/19/2013 12:25:46 PM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

“Persons born to US citizens abroad are United States citizens AT BIRTH, and before any documentation of the fact is ever issued.”

You appear to have missed that bit in the statute about the residency requirements needing to be met for the US citizen parent.

If Cruz’s mom had been age 18 at his birth (like Barry’s) instead of age 27 (IIRC), Cruz would NOT have been a statutory citizen at birth due to his mom failing the residency requirement of 5 years US residency after age 14 that was in effect at the time of his birth.


121 posted on 08/19/2013 12:45:21 PM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Also overlooked/ignored are the requirements for retention of citizenship - to return to the United States prior to becoming 23 years old and to be continuously present for five years thereafter:

Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(b)

Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United States for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.

122 posted on 08/19/2013 1:02:47 PM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Here in the 21st century, sixteen court decisions have ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen and he published a book about his Kenyan born father 13 years before he ran for president. No court decision and no act of Congress has found him not to qualify. I predict that it will be the same with Senator Cruz.
Allen v. Obama, Arizona (2012)
Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana (2009)
Fair v. Obama, Maryland (2012)
Farrar v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
Freeman v. Obama, Illinois (2012)
Galasso v. Obama, New Jersey (2012)
Jackson v. Obama, Illinois (2012)
Paige v. Obama, Vermont (2012)
Powell v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
Purpura, et. al. v. Obama, New Jersey (2012)
Strunk v. N.Y. Board of Elections, New York (2012)
Swensson v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto), Washington, D.D. (2010)
Tisdale v. Obama, Virginia (2012)
Voeltz v. Obama, Florida (2012)
Welden v. Obama, Georgia (2012)


123 posted on 08/19/2013 1:07:07 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

No, that would make him a stautorily born citizen. Not a naturally born citizen.


124 posted on 08/19/2013 1:19:29 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

My source is Article 1 section 8 and in addition to the clause about creating the rules for naturalization, the final clause of section 8 reads:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

In addition, your cited reference from heritage, you apparently forgot to read the paragraph that starts “In Rogers v. Bellei (1971), however, the Court did uphold a statute requiring that if a person acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to an American citizen,...” That clearly shows that SCOTUS believes that 1) A person can acquire US Citizenship at birth though born abroad and 2) that citizenship at birth only requires one US Citizen parent.

Now as to your first citation. Please take the effort to look down on that page and find the URL “Citizenship Through Parents” and follow that link. Then look down to left hand side to the third case (Mr Cruz was born December 22, 1970). IN YOUR OWN CITATION, The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least ten years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least five of which were after his or her 14th birthday.

Mr Cruz’s mother was a US Citizen, attended college in Texas and graduated with a Bachelors. It therefore follows that Mr Cruz acquired his citizenship from his mother at his birth and as such, has never need to be naturalized and is therefore, a natural born citizen.


125 posted on 08/19/2013 1:24:04 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

There is no such thing as a statutorily born citizen. That category does not even exist. So, please, quit making things up. Stick to the facts and if you can, please site the Constitution, historical facts and laws of the land to support your position rather than continuing to spout your unsupported opinion.


126 posted on 08/19/2013 1:30:13 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

You’ve previously and repeatedly trotted out this circular nonsense: Cruz acquired by naturalization statute citizenship and therefore doesn’t require naturalization.


127 posted on 08/19/2013 1:33:15 PM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
What is nonsense is your attempt to deny Congress a power expressly reserved to them by the Constitution.

Congress does not, nor have they EVER HAD, the ability to CHANGE THE MEANING OF WORDS in the US Constitution.

This power is FORBIDDEN. Not only is it NOT ALLOWED, it can NEVER be allowed. It would be an open door to tyranny.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress cannot repeal the law of nature. It is not among their powers.

But enough of me citing the Constitution, historical facts, and laws of the land. Your turn to start citing references to support your position.

Please. You've barely scratched the surface, and what bits you do cite, you get completely wrong. You are in the kiddie pool of this debate, and until you move into deeper waters, i'm not really interested in trading historical cites with you.

128 posted on 08/19/2013 1:36:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

First off, it is not circular, second, it is the same section of the law (subsection A) that states if you are born in the US, you are a citizen. Mr Cruz acquired his US Citizenship by his US Citizen Mother at birth therefore he has never needed to be naturalized.

Now I have cited specific sections of the Constitution, historical facts, and the laws of this land. It is now time for you to start citing one of those three to support your opinion.


129 posted on 08/19/2013 1:37:11 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Was the French citizenship conferred at the actual birth of each, or granted later?


130 posted on 08/19/2013 1:42:55 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Your “rationale” is entirely circular.


131 posted on 08/19/2013 1:43:04 PM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(b)

Cruz is defined in law, “citizen”.


132 posted on 08/19/2013 1:43:30 PM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You state that I’ve barely scratched the surface with my citations yet you are unable to make any citations to support your opinion. You claim that I’m in the kiddie pool but brother, you are not even wet.

No one (other than yourself) is asserting that Congress is attempting to alter the meaning of words.

No one (other than yourself) is asserting that Congress is attempting to alter or repeal a law of nature.

You say you don’t want to trade historical cites ... fine, start citing laws, or the Constitution. Until you can do that you are just spouting off with your unsupported opinion.


133 posted on 08/19/2013 1:43:34 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Here in 6 minutes is the true definition of the founders original intent as stated by a Constitutional lawyer and scholar well versed on the subject. His credentials are impeccable. He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Watch and listen real good taxcontrol.

Part 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=esiZZ-1R7e8

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xoaZ8WextxQ


134 posted on 08/19/2013 1:50:04 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: xzins
And that meaning was revealed when in 1790, George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, and the Congress, many of whom helped produce the Constitution just 3 years earlier, decided to pass and sign the Naturalization Law of 1790 in which they used the expression "natural born citizen" to describe a child born overseas to US citizen parents.

Your point would be correct if the Naturalization Law of 1790 used the word *are* instead of "Shall be considered as".

That is a fact. It is an irreversible fact. The Founders used natural born citizen to describe a born overseas citizen.

Yes, as something to compare this newly created class of citizen with. Once again, "naturalization " is to make "like natural. " It's not the same thing as being natural.

Significantly, though, when Congress was making the initial laws of the land, when they had to be concise, precise, and get right to the most important issues, they recognized bloodline citizenship as natural born citizenship.

But they only recognized the bloodline of the FATHER. The citizenship of the mother was irrelevant prior to marriage because Women automatically became citizens of their husband's country when they married.

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Dual citizenship didn't exist until 1922. Prior to that, both parents were always the same nationality.

135 posted on 08/19/2013 1:52:24 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

None of those cases went to trial and had Constitutional scholars and lawyers take the stand to discus the merits of presidential eligibility. The cases never even made it to the discovery phase.


136 posted on 08/19/2013 1:52:54 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

You just said he was a born a citizen because of a statute. Do you even read what you post?


137 posted on 08/19/2013 2:02:52 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Yes, Mr Cruz was a citizen of the US at his birth and thus was naturally born as a US citizen. He never was an “alien” and never was in need of naturalization and he never immigrated.

I would also point out that in Title 8 section 1401 section A, anyone born in the US is defined by law as “citizen”.


138 posted on 08/19/2013 2:03:28 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Remove that statute - POOF! No more citizenship.

You read words into the law that are not there.


139 posted on 08/19/2013 2:14:42 PM PDT by Ray76 (Common sense immigration reform: Enforce Existing Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
All who are born in the US are citizens by that statue. Laws and statue is how we run this land. Congress expresses it's will by passing laws. The Constitution in Article 1 section 8 specifically empowers Congress to establish the laws necessary for executing and governing this nation.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

140 posted on 08/19/2013 2:22:15 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

You got a lawyer to express an opinion similar to yours. Not impressed. In fact, this lawyer, despite his degrees, is demonstratively incorrect in his first min of the video. Listen to the video, then go look at the acts of the First congress and read in the naturalization act what it says about “natural born citizens”.


141 posted on 08/19/2013 2:29:01 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
has never need to be naturalized and is therefore, a natural born citizen.

and is therefore, a natural born citizen.

142 posted on 08/19/2013 2:34:48 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves Month")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

So what is your opinion as to what constitutes a natural born citizen? Child of a US Citizen parent? Born in the US? What?


143 posted on 08/19/2013 2:38:23 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

Actually most of those cases went to trial. The four lawsuits in Georgia went to a “trial on the merits” as did the New Jersey cases. Tracy Fair had a hearing and the chance to present evidence to a judge in Maryland. The Illinois ballot challenges had hearings before the Illinois Board of Elections.
Ankeny was an appeal of a case that went to trial in Indiana and Strunk had a trial in New York. Strunk angered the judge so much that the judge assessed $177,000 in court costs against him.
Lawsuit trials are not the same as criminal trials. They are often wrapped up in a single hearing.


144 posted on 08/19/2013 2:40:49 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

You are revealing more and more the prep your obamaroid handlers have given to you to spew on the Internet. There are lots of democrips who are desperate for Cruz to be the nominee, so your assertion of supporting Cruz is a sham from the start, given the extensive obamanoid postings you’ve made since signing on here.


145 posted on 08/19/2013 2:45:40 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
As for dual citizenship, 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens, while serving as President. Nobody cared.

Because it was a secondary citizenship acquired for the purpose of commerce and had no affect on the primary American citizenship:

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

-----

James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1833)

Really Jeff? Again with posting quotes with no sources?

A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States

Is it because you don't want people to read down to page 4 and see this was not a book of law but an instruction book for 'youth'?

Or to see that when you say the legal authorities 'approved' the work, (insinuating they agreed with everything Baynard said) they actually, did nothing more than to give their appoval of the project itself and it's purpose?

------

Why don't you source it, Jeff?

146 posted on 08/19/2013 2:59:03 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I want the strongest conservative candidate to oppose Chris Christie for the nomination. If that is Ted Cruz, he’ll have my support. If it isn’t Ted Cruz, whoever else emerges will have my support.
I believe that Obama was able to use the eligibility issue to his advantage with voting blocs that also have their citizenship status challenged: Asians and Latinos.
Obama was anticipating a loss of white indepndent voter support and a loss of black Christian support. He lost 4% white support from 2008 and he lost 3% of black support. But he increased his Asian support by 12% and his Latino support by 5% from what he got in 2008.


147 posted on 08/19/2013 3:00:16 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
All who are born in the US are citizens by that statue

This is false. Natural born citizens are citizens regardless of what the naturalization statutes say.

148 posted on 08/19/2013 3:03:42 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
You state that I’ve barely scratched the surface with my citations yet you are unable to make any citations to support your opinion.

Not unable, just not interested in citing them to you. You have such a disconnect that it would be a waste of time from my perspective. Anybody who keeps citing a NATURALIZATION statute as proof of "natural born" will very likely not accept anything which challenges their world view.

No one (other than yourself) is asserting that Congress is attempting to alter or repeal a law of nature.

And see here? You're playing word games. If Ted Cruz didn't qualify by the rules of 1787, and according to you, he qualifies according to the rules of 1934, then it is a defacto alteration of what "n-a-t-u-r-a-l born" means.

You say you don’t want to trade historical cites ... fine, start citing laws, or the Constitution.

And this is more proof that you simply can't grasp my point. You can't cite a LAW because no "law" is applicable. Laws cannot change nature.

You treat the words "Natural Born Citizen" like they can mean whatever we want them to mean. I treat them as having a specific and unalterable meaning.

As long as you think the meaning is flexible, you will be unable to grasp my point.

149 posted on 08/19/2013 3:52:09 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
What's bad for this country is simply ignoring the parts of the Constitution you don't agree with. No part of the Constitution is more important than another - either every word is sacred, or none are. I believe that the Constitution IS America, and every word of it is sacred. If something is outdated, then that is what the Amendment process was designed to handle.

The Constitution says a person must be a 'natural born Citizen', what does that mean? It simply means that a 'naturalized' Citizen is not eligible to be President.

What is 'naturalization'? It's not simply a process one goes through to become a US citizen, later in life, and ends with a swearing of allegiance. It means to be a Citizen through some statute, because you are not a Citizen by nature.

Ted Cruz is not a 'natural born Citizen' of the United States, because he is a statutory US citizen under section 301 of the United Stated Immigration and Nationality Act.

It's even in the title of chapter that section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. "Collective Naturalization". Ted Cruz is part of a legal class - a collective - that was 'naturalized' automatically at the time of his birth. He is a statutory Citizen, and not a 'natural born Citizen'.

Who are the 'natural born Citizens'? Simple - anyone who does not require any statute to be a Citizen at the time of their birth. You can be a Citizen at birth by being born either inside the country or outside. With parents who are US citizens, or not. But the only situation that does not require a legal statute to be a Citizen are those born BOTH in the country, AND with Citizen parents. They need no statute, because they are Citizens according to natural law.
150 posted on 08/19/2013 4:08:16 PM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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