Skip to comments.
The Most Important Question in Natural Born Citizen Debate
Self
| 1/12/16
| Rebuildus
Posted on 01/12/2016 6:10:48 AM PST by rebuildus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-102 next last
To: Cboldt
Actually, I raise them regarding Bienvenido Cruz’s ‘residency’ in the United States. Under the 1790 and 1795 laws, both his behavior and his application for Canadian citizenship say he was not a resident of the United States. His loyalty was not here. Therefore, by those early laws his son, Ted, would not have been eligible for the presidency.
Today Ted is. The law has changed, and with it the ‘legal’ notion of what constitutes fulfilling the ‘NBC requirement’ of the US Constitution.
61
posted on
01/12/2016 8:01:10 AM PST
by
xzins
(Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: deport
No. Ted says his dad got a green card. Green card holders were eligible for the draft and deferments could increase the eligible age to as high as 35 years old.
62
posted on
01/12/2016 8:02:25 AM PST
by
xzins
(Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: xzins
Gotcha. Well, I don't see anything in the constitution that gives citizenship to anybody born abroad, and I see plenty in the constitution that finds citizenship to those born in the US. So, if there are residence requirements in some natrualization statute, I see them being met or not met as affecting naturalization only.
And as you point out, the conclusion that Cruz is a citizen is almost certainly true, accurate, etc. All we are left with is a pure question of constitutional law.
63
posted on
01/12/2016 8:06:57 AM PST
by
Cboldt
To: xzins
Thanks. Wasn’t aware of the Green card draft elgibility. But also remember he most
likely wouldnn’t have been drafted as he got married midway thru his UT tenure and had
two childern. So his draft elgibility would have been push further down the scale.
64
posted on
01/12/2016 8:07:20 AM PST
by
deport
To: Godebert
And after what was seen of our congress critters the past two prior elections, it is very understandable why our Founding Fathers so decided. Our congress critters have less loyalty to our country than our current sitting POTUS - which is -0
65
posted on
01/12/2016 8:17:45 AM PST
by
V K Lee
(u TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP to TRIUMPH Follow the lead MAKE AMERICA GREAT)
To: rebuildus
To take it back as far as it will go requires us to look at the book of Deuteronomy...You lost me here, buddy.
Inject religion into the discussion is a guaranteed thread killer.
If we can't argue secular matters using secular logic and reasoning, we don't deserve to prevail.
I am an industrial-strength "crusader" Christian, but I refuse to use Mass Murdering Muslim (MMM) argument, illogic and primitive emotional arguments to make my case.
66
posted on
01/12/2016 8:25:52 AM PST
by
publius911
(IMPEACH HIM NOW! evil ignorant stupid or crazy-doesn't matter!)
To: deport
Lyndon Johnson ended the marriage deferment in 1965.
67
posted on
01/12/2016 8:28:53 AM PST
by
xzins
(Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: Mechanicos
Excellent point that I have not seen before !
68
posted on
01/12/2016 9:16:16 AM PST
by
khelus
To: xzins
You do not have to be eligible to run for President. The citizens of the state’s are not electing either a candidate in the primary or the president in the general. They are giving to one person the right to send delegates to the convention or the electoral college.
In the past a lot of candidates ran as “favorite son” candidates with no intention of serving as president, but instead wishing to sway the election to favor their interests in supporting a nominee who did not get a majority going in.
The election of President does not occur until the electoral college has cast their votes and it is certified by congress. Up until they moment the question of eligibility is irrelevant. It is up to the electors and congress to make that determination. After Congress has certified the election, thereby declaring that the president elect is eligible and the election results are correct, the only way to remove the president is by impeachment. The courts have no standing before the election is certified and no jursdiction after.
69
posted on
01/12/2016 9:23:05 AM PST
by
P-Marlowe
(Tagline pending.)
To: P-Marlowe
The election of President does not occur until the electoral college has cast their votes and it is certified by congress. Up until they moment the question of eligibility is irrelevant. It is up to the electors and congress to make that determination. After Congress has certified the election, thereby declaring that the president elect is eligible and the election results are correct, the only way to remove the president is by impeachment. The courts have no standing before the election is certified and no jursdiction after. Wow great analysis...here's a question...would the house certify Cruz?
70
posted on
01/12/2016 9:26:13 AM PST
by
DouglasKC
(I'm pro-choice when it comes to lion killing....)
To: EternalVigilance
71
posted on
01/12/2016 9:43:26 AM PST
by
randita
To: randita
Your parents don’t have to be born in the US they just have to be naturalized citizens at the time of your birth.
72
posted on
01/12/2016 9:49:17 AM PST
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
To: deport
His father also had two daughters from his first marriage.
73
posted on
01/12/2016 9:49:46 AM PST
by
randita
To: Godebert
Take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States and our Founding Fathers.
In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a lawthat required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.
After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.
The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.
Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.
Did you know ...
Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenshipif she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.
Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:
1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives
Also notice that the Supreme Court has backed up that definition!
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV)
Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen
Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.
But the fact is, they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.
And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” — he was ALSO “natural born.”
If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.
The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact foundthat Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.
Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.
But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.
There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.
But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.
Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”
Note that again:Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”
The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:
“Plaintiff claims thatPresident Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supportsthat President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“
Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.
So the statement that
"natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !
74
posted on
01/12/2016 9:53:04 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Georgia Girl 2
Naturalized citizens - no.
Thomas Jefferson was born in 1743 - we were not a country then so he and his parents were both British subjects.
Andrew Jackson - Dittoes - born before we were a country to foreign parents.
James Buchanan born in 1791 to Scottish parents. We don’t know if his parents were naturalized at the time of his birth. The country was only four years old.
Barack Obama - you know his history.
75
posted on
01/12/2016 9:59:39 AM PST
by
randita
To: randita
Read the eligibility clause of the Constitution and you will then understand.
76
posted on
01/12/2016 10:05:21 AM PST
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
To: Georgia Girl 2
The Constitution does not define natural born.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerate Congress with the “Rules of Naturalization”.
The scope of those rules are not limited. The rules include who needs to be naturalized and the rules include who does not need to be naturalized.
The current expression of those rules are listed in Title 8 section 1401. Even those citizens who are born in the US are citizens at birth (Naturally born as citizens) are defined by that law.
77
posted on
01/12/2016 10:09:26 AM PST
by
randita
To: randita
His father also had two daughters from his first marriage.
**********
One of which died back in 2011.
78
posted on
01/12/2016 10:10:37 AM PST
by
deport
To: DouglasKC
Not if Pelosi is speaker. She still holds a grudge with Bush v Gore.
Then again no smart congressman would want to set a precedent by refusing to certify an election. That kind of vote can come to bite you.
79
posted on
01/12/2016 10:19:33 AM PST
by
P-Marlowe
(Tagline pending.)
To: randita
Seven U.S. Presidents had one or both parents who were not born here. A non sequitur.
Whether their parents were born here is not even the question.
The question is whether or not they were citizens, able therefore to transmit citizenship by nature, instead of mere statute.
80
posted on
01/12/2016 10:21:47 AM PST
by
EternalVigilance
('A man without force is without the essential dignity of humanity.' - Frederick Douglass)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-102 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson