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

Skip to comments.

natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz
Legal Insurrection ^ | 9/3/13 | William Jacobson

Posted on 09/03/2013 10:18:04 AM PDT by Lakeshark

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-356 next last
To: sourcery

” If I can’t make my full case “

You don’t have a case, that’s the problem. Your entire bullshit argument is to redefine the word “natural” to mean “born to two parents who are US citizens and born on US soil”. I looked in a number of dictionaries but I can’t seem to find that definition anywhere.

The fact is there is a “natural born citizen”, meaning someone who is a citizen by virtue of their birth, and there is “naturalized citizen, meaning they had to take actions after their birth to become a citizen. That’s it. There is no such thing as a “statutory citizen” or any other type of citizen as you internet lawyers try to define. Either you are a citizen at birth or not. Period.

Cruz was a citizen at birth, so he is a “natural born citizen”.

What lousy Americans you guys are for not knowing simple law and history, not knowing civics, and not knowing the English language. Just simply embarrassing.


121 posted on 09/03/2013 1:37:53 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

“12. No Clear Binding Supreme Court Precedent **snip**”

Not true! SCOTUS has opined Congress cannot enlarge or abridge the citizenship rights of a naturalized U.S. Citizen. See Schneider v. Rusk. Any person who follows the prescribed rules and regulations of the Immigration and Naturalization Act as set forth by Congress and signed into law by the President, has a right to U.S. Citizenship.

There is no right to the classification of Natural born citizen. No person can be denied the classification, nor judged to be natural born, because there is not a right to be classified as a natural born citizen.

SCOTUS has opined a naturalized citizen is ineligible to be POTUS. The State Department asserts statutory citizens, such as Cruz, are not naturalized citizens even though they rely on the Immigration and Naturalization Act to exercise their right to U.S. Citizenship.


122 posted on 09/03/2013 1:43:48 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Really, all this just because Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban dad?

His mother was clearly an American citizen. Hmmm


123 posted on 09/03/2013 1:45:06 PM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Bringing that birther crap onto Cruz threads seems like a good way to get banned.

/johnny

124 posted on 09/03/2013 1:48:08 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

Then how did Barry get to be president. He wasn’t born to parents who were citizens. He was born to a parent who was a citizen and one who was a British subject.


125 posted on 09/03/2013 1:49:30 PM PDT by This I Wonder32460
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
"You don’t have a case, that’s the problem."

The fact that you would launch an attack against someone who is disarmed out of respect for the property owner says all that needs to be said about who you are and the integrity of your argument.

126 posted on 09/03/2013 1:49:32 PM PDT by sourcery (Valid rights must be perfectly reciprocal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Cruz was a citizen at birth, so he is a “natural born citizen”.

Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act at the time of Cruz's birth, Cruz had a right to U.S. Citizenship.

SCOTUS has opined Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to enlarge or abridge the citizenship rights of a naturalized citizen, i.e. they can't write a law, rule or regulation to have a citizen recognized as a natural born citizen because they are not authorized to enlarge or abridge the citizenship rights of citizen.
127 posted on 09/03/2013 1:51:24 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

The guys’ a loon.


128 posted on 09/03/2013 1:52:07 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: This I Wonder32460

He was pushed upon the American electorate who allowed Article 2 Section 1 to be subverted. There were many people who were political opportunist that were behind letting him dodge the eligibility process. The media was a huge factor using the race card if his eligibility was questioned.


129 posted on 09/03/2013 1:54:30 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: This I Wonder32460

corrupt judiciary that’s how


130 posted on 09/03/2013 2:00:22 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Here is a Constitutional scholar who explains what a true natural born Citizen is. Pay close attention. His credentials are.

Part 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ


131 posted on 09/03/2013 2:01:27 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

so what about a foundling of unknown parentage? they are a citizen at birth .


132 posted on 09/03/2013 2:02:15 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

I can quote many other “scholars” that disagree with your scholars, so who is right? Hmm? We the People are right.

Your scholar is an idiot that can’t seem to understand there are natural and naturalized citizens and that is it. It is like being either alive or dead, there is no in between. Your idiot scholar would try to redefine a woman “as a little bit pregnant”.


133 posted on 09/03/2013 2:03:28 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
But once he does, the leftists will attack Cruz's eligibility relentlessly

Isn't Cruz's situation exactly the same as Zero?

134 posted on 09/03/2013 2:03:58 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

That is a false statement and a false conclusion. You omitted the phrase “considered as”, which directly indicates the person is not a natural born citizen, because it required the statute of law to authorize the person to be considered as a natural born citizen for purposes of immigration despite actually not being a natural born citizen. This is the same usage described by Sir edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 and earlier sources. Naturalized persons are also “considered as” citizens despite not being citizens at birth. Their being “considered as” citizens does not make them citizens at birth either. So, your example actually supports the observation of how a person born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents are artificial born citizens of the United States by operation of enactments of law by man with conditional residency requirements; whereas a natural born citizen has such status in the absence of an artificial law or conditional residency requirements. As Sir Edward Coke observed, it is the difference between datus and natus.


135 posted on 09/03/2013 2:04:06 PM PDT by WhiskeyX ( provides a system for registering complaints about unfair broadcasters and the ability to request a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Isn't Cruz's situation exactly the same as Zero?

No. Obama's story (that the left has accepted) is the he was born in Hawaii to a mother who was a US citizen but whose father never was.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a non-US citizen father but a US citizen mother.

The left made a big deal over the fact that Obama was born in the US, and that the 14th Amendment made him a citizen at birth. Their primary argument was based on the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision. In effect, they were arguing that NBC = born on US soil. So they'll have no problem with self-contradiction when they argue against Cruz's eligibility.

136 posted on 09/03/2013 2:09:21 PM PDT by sourcery (Valid rights must be perfectly reciprocal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

Placekeeper.


137 posted on 09/03/2013 2:11:13 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

“Isn’t Cruz’s situation exactly the same as Zero?”

No, it is not the same situation. Obama’s mother was a minor, not emancipated, and not lawfully capable of transmitting her own U.S. citizenship to her child, regardless of where the child was born. Furthermore, there is still no credible evidence available to demonstrate his birth was within Hawaii or the United States. There is credible evidence Obama is an illegal alien who obtained a U.S. Passport by fraudulent means. It appears likely there may have been a fraudulent application for an Hawaiian birth certificate, but the publicly disclosed documents puporting to be evidence of such a birth certificate are now proven to be frauduklent forgeries according to current law enforcement investigations.


138 posted on 09/03/2013 2:11:47 PM PDT by WhiskeyX ( provides a system for registering complaints about unfair broadcasters and the ability to request a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

“so what about a foundling of unknown parentage? they are a citizen at birth .”

That’s right, but so what? Prove they are were not born here. You have until their 21st birthday to do so. After that, tough.


139 posted on 09/03/2013 2:12:45 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Children of minors are not citizens???

OMG


140 posted on 09/03/2013 2:13:39 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-356 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