Posted on 11/14/2015 2:48:45 PM PST by ScottWalkerForPresident2016
I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a "Natural-Born Citizen" in order to be President under Article II, Sec. 1.
I am disputing the bona-fides of:
Marco Rubio - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S., however his parents were un-naturalized "permanent resident" Cuban citizens when he was born.
Ted Cruz - NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother who may have natualized as a Canadian.
Bobby Jindal - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to parents who were un-naturalized citizens of Indiaa at the time of Bobby Jindal's bitth.
Rick Santorum - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick Santorum's birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
.
He sure would beat Obama&Co.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of natural born Citizen in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendments citizen to Article II s natural born Citizen. But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer natural born citizen status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.
Congress can not change the Constitution by legislation.
Have a nice trip into ridiculous land. I’m not going with you.
Winston Churchill had an American mom so I guess Winston Churchill was also a NBC. I'd vote for him too :)
Cruz only claim to natural born citizen status is the fact he had one American parent. Everyone I sited in my post has the exact same claim.
Pub.L. 82–414 § 301(a)(7),(b); 66 Stat. 236.
Look it up.
The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.
The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on June 13, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States. The dates of ratification were:
Connecticut, June 25, 1866
New Hampshire, July 6, 1866
Tennessee, July 19, 1866
New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on Nov. 12, 1980, expressed support for the amendment);
Oregon, September 19, 1866 (and rescinded its ratification on October 15, 1868)
Vermont, October 30, 1866
Ohio, January 4, 1867 (and rescinded its ratification on January 15, 1868)
New York, January 10, 1867
Kansas, January 11, 1867
Illinois, January 15, 1867
West Virginia, January 16, 1867
Michigan, January 16, 1867
Minnesota, January 16, 1867
Maine, January 19, 1867
Nevada, January 22, 1867
Indiana, January 23, 1867
Missouri, January 25, 1867
Rhode Island, February 7, 1867
Wisconsin, February 7, 1867
Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867
Massachusetts, March 20, 1867
Nebraska, June 15, 1867
Iowa, March 16, 1868
Arkansas, April 6, 1868
Florida, June 9, 1868
North Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)
Ratification was completed on July 9, 1868.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by:
Alabama, July 13, 1868
Georgia, July 21, 1868 (after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)
Virginia, October 8, 1869 (after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
Mississippi, January 17, 1870
Texas, February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)
Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on February 8, 1867)
Maryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on March 23, 1867)
California, May 6, 1959
Kentucky, March 18, 1976 (after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
Courts do not provide answers to all questions or issues.
Just as it is not the job of the judiciary to appoint ambassadors, to grant pardons, to impeach presidents, to declare war or to impose taxes, it is not the job of the judiciary to choose Presidents. I believe that the Constitution very clearly delegates to Electors the responsibility for choosing our presidents.
I believe that is why you have never seen a court attempt to disqualify any candidate for President. And, if you are a voter, you participate in the election of Electors. You must take that responsibility seriously and you should not vote for an Elector who is pledged to support an unqualified candidate.
If Ted Cruz was not qualified to be President, I would not vote for Electors who pledge themselves to support his candidacy. However, Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen and he is, therefore, qualified to be President. If he is on my ballot, I will vote for him.
He is legally considered a natural born citizen. Period. Nothing else is relevant.
Five years after the age of 14.
See post #116.
0’s mom was too young to convey us citizenship to 0.
0’s birth cert is fake, therefore he can’t prove he was born in the US (otherwise he would have shown a real one).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3360322/posts?page=116#116
What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?
Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.
When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14.
An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.
While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.
The electoral process is a political process defined by law.
Eligibility is not a political question, it is a set of legal requirements defined by the Constitution. To claim that eligibility is a political question is absurd, it renders the Constitutional requirements a nullity.
Eligibility is determined by three factors, each and all justiciable:
There is nothing that cannot be framed in terms of a question of law or fact. Of course, a court would be mentally capable of finding facts. That is not the problem. The problem is that the Constitution has delegated that responsibility to another Constitutional actor - the Electors.
There is a similar example of which everyone is familiar. Suppose a person is tried for committing a crime. The defendant takes the witness stand and confesses his guilt. But, at the end of the case, the jury comes back with an acquittal and then tells the court that even though each member of the jury is certain that the defendant is guilty of the crime, the jury has decided to acquit the defendant because the jury does not want to follow the instructions of the court or the law. Under those circumstances, there is no reason that the Supreme Court would be mentally incapable of making a determination that the defendant was wrongfully acquitted and that he in fact committed the acts constituting the crime. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court would be without power to convict the defendant because the Constitution commits that decision to a different Constitutional actor - a petit jury.
For the same reasons, I believe that a court has no right to participate in evaluating the qualifications of candidates or choosing presidents. Electors choose presidents. And, since you as a voter participate in choosing Electors, I believe that you have a duty to evaluate the qualifications of candidates and that you should not assume that a court can perform that function for you.
We have been electing presidents for more than 200 years. You will not find that our Supreme Court has ever disqualified a candidate for president or that it has ever even claimed to possess the power to disqualify a candidate for president.
Rational people recognize that "natural citizen" means the same thing today that it meant in 1787. The Constitution is changed through the amendment process, not from a floor vote of congress.
Really? They can't even get the definition of "Matrimony" correct.
I looked up the etymology for the word "Matrimony."
It's Latin, and it's derived from Mater, or Mother.
The word mean "Ceremony to create a mother."
Two faggots do not qualify, by the very definition of the word, they are excluded.
No, until the Supreme Court sheds a few idiots, I wouldn't be interested in letting them interpret anything else. They will just muck it up.
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.