Posted on 09/30/2014 7:45:10 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
From appeal to popularity to appeal to authority in one move.
JR doesn’t want you to troll it here but I think he is OK with you doing it elsewhere.
You do respect private ownership don’t you?
I do.
JR doesn’t want you to troll it here but I think he is OK with you doing it elsewhere.
Who's trolling -- I'm not, I think it's a valid concern.
And who says that I have to agree with everything that the proprietor/authority thinks… isn't that rather frowned on here when a teacher does it WRT anthropogenic global warming, evolution, or any number of topics? — Or do you mean to imply that Mr. Robinson is intolerant on differences of opinion in the realm of civics?
The non-experience thing doesn’t seem to slow down the Hillary supporters. Of course the media, under marching orders, will attack any non-dem candidate with everything they have while overlooking the flaws in the one they love..That being said, the bigger problem will be the crooked voting machines that can determine who will win, regardless of the count.
Well, we breathlessly await your brilliant legal arguments against Cruz.
Pull your head out of your ass — I respect and like Mr. Cruz, but that is no cause for me to abandon concern that the Constitution be followed.
Besides, you yourself have shown that you are immune to brilliant legal argument as you dismiss anything that doesn't 100% agree with you (we've all seen you on War on Drugs threads).
Like I said, we breathlessly await your brilliant legal arguments against Cruz.
I hope they are better than this petty nonsense you are posting today.
Do you even listen to what people say to you?
None of my "arguments" have been against Cruz.
“The pluralization of “parent” indicates two parents”
A fascinating observation... even more so considering that the quote you provided has neither the word parent or parents.
If by chance, you meant the word citizens (the first time it is used), and you make the wild jump that the fact citizens is plural means both parents then...
1.) Children is plural as well, do you have to have a sibling or be a twin to be a natural born citizen?
2.) What about single parents, are they out of luck?
3.) What about the second instance of the word citizens... “shall be considered as natural-born citizens” do you have to have split personalities to be a natural born citizen?
Or maybe... you could go with the obvious reading that the child of any US citizen is a natural born citizen... and thus by having a mother who was a US citizen, Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.
If you are going through logic 101, then he who asserts must prove. You raised the concern about Ted’s eligibility... but have no proof. The burden is on you.
The quote you provided did not support your stance, and in fact wasn’t even the current version of the law (which also does not support your stance).
So again... what support do you offer for your position?
Okay great. The more women that agree with you the better.
As much as I know about him now, I’d like to see him get in also.
So you are going to get on Cruz threads to promote him as the right choice for our presidential candidate?
Is that what you are doing on this Cruz thread?
I raised concerns; I did not assert.
Therefore, I may not have to prove. (That is if P -> Q and ~P, then Q may or may not be true; ex: If it rains, then you are wet. It did not rain. [You could still be wet from, say, sprinklers.]
)
The quote you provided did not support your stance, and in fact wasn’t even the current version of the law (which also does not support your stance).
So again... what support do you offer for your position?
My personal position, right now, is that legally-speaking Natural Born Citizen
is, at this point, essentially undefined. I think that legally-speaking we cannot get a clear answer form the courts, in part because to do so would damage the position of the elites. (I'm fairly sure Obama isn't a NBC, I strongly suspect McCain isn't, and I have some doubts as to Romney — in short, I think the `08 and `12 presidential elections were engineered to give precedent to ignoring/destroying the NBC requirement.) As I've said, repeatedly, the definition I proffered is the strictest [reasonable] one I've found, not necessarily what I think is the correct definition. (It would, for example, disqualify children of ambassadors — obviously absurd.)
As for support of the strict definition, how about John Bingham, the Father of the 14th Amendment
?
Let me put it for you clearly:
(1) If he's constitutionally ineligible, then he's not the right choice for presidential candidate — regardless of his ability or virtue.
(2) I'm not convinced that he is Constitutionally eligible.
(3) Therefore I cannot, in good conscience, promote him for president.
This says nothing about his ability, virtue, competency or anything else. It is solely a matter of the Constitution.
In any case, I think he'd be better on the Supreme Court than in the White House.
The pluralization of "parent" indicates two parents, not one...
Not necessarily, because it says "children" rather than "a child".
If it read "a child of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as a natural-born citizen", then you would be correct.
But it doesn't say that. It's vague on the question, as is the Constitution.
So you claim you have “concerns”. Rather than research, you air them here using strictest definition you can find even though you are not sure if that is the definition you agree with. You call anyone who doesn’t accept your definition (the one you aren’t sure you agree with) names if they do t like you airing your “concern” here (the concern based on a strict definition that even you are not sure you agree with).
Add in lectures on logic and a tantrum about how you refuse to vote for someone who violates your strongly felt principal that you can’t be bothered to research (or if you have, you won’t post or stand behind what you post as what you believe).... You are starting to look a lot like a troll.
I've done a bit of research, but admittedly it's not exactly interesting subject matter to me.
You call anyone who doesn’t accept your definition (the one you aren’t sure you agree with) names if they do t like you airing your “concern” here (the concern based on a strict definition that even you are not sure you agree with).
If you're talking about Ansel; it's not because he doesn't accept the definition, but because he is so utterly refuses to listen/converse.
I've had discussions with him in the past. (Some of the threads w/ the War on Drugs are particularly illuminating of Ansel's immunity to logic.)
Add in lectures on logic and a tantrum about how you refuse to vote for someone who violates your strongly felt principal that you can’t be bothered to research (or if you have, you won’t post or stand behind what you post as what you believe).... You are starting to look a lot like a troll.
I've researched, but the problem is in how trustworthy the sources are.
The courts, in particular, aren't very trustworthy (Kentucky v. King has the USSC straight up admitting that the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches… followed closely by: One well-recognized exception applies when “‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”*)
Absent the courts, it's wading through legislation — which is of questionable value, as normal acts of congress cannot alter the Constitution — and old legal texts — which, depending on age and origin, are of questionable value — and other people's research — which is also of questionable value.
So, where am I to find clear, reliably-correct answers?
* You get that? the fourth amendment which requires (1) that all searches be reasonable; and (b) that a warrant be obtained for a search flies right out the window because of exigent circumstances… and this piece of crap is from the USSC.
>> “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
>>
>> The pluralization of “parent” indicates two parents, not one...
>
> Not necessarily, because it says “children” rather than “a child”.
>
> If it read “a child of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as a natural-born citizen”, then you would be correct.
>
> But it doesn’t say that. It’s vague on the question, as is the Constitution.
And it is the vagueness that bugs me.
I am sure that our [domestic] enemies are working to destroy the Constitution, in all aspects — the destruction of the NBC-requirement would widen their pool of actors to place as President — as they fancy themselves to be elite, untouchable, nigh-unto-gods and thus free from any restraint. I am therefore quite uneasy in pulling for anyone who, even with best intentions, could be used to damage our already enfeebled Constitution further.
“And it is the vagueness that bugs me.”
“the destruction of the NBC-requirement would widen their pool of actors to place as President”
If it is vague, then how would clarifying be destroying it?
If McCain and Obama have both run, what precedent are you worried about Senator Cruz setting that is not already in place?
If you claim to want to discuss this, why do you avoid answering my questions and instead chase shiny objects such as calling other posters names and your objections to how searches are conducted?
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.