Posted on 04/10/2016 8:21:55 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
ONCE AGAIN the question you dodge:
— How could Bellei lose his citizenship if he never had it to being with? —
Bellei was a natural born citizen from the moment of his birth.
Otherwise, the entire case would be moot.
If Bellei was not a citizen, there would be nothing to be taken away.
How could Bellei lose something he never had?
In order to contemplate stripping Bellei of citizenship, the Court first had to decide if he ever had it to begin with.
The Court does not decide MOOT questions.
Bellei’s citizenship was taken away only because he HAD IT at birth.
If he did not have it at birth, then there was nothing for the government to take away.
There is the comprehension problem right there.
You need to learn HOW to read court cases.
“Cruz relies on the 1790 Act of Congress in regards to his citizenship status.”
No, he does not.
The 1790 Act has been replaced by Congress many times over the last 230 years or so.
The law as it existed when Ted Cruz was born was similar to the 1790 Act.
The reason the 1790 Act is significant is that 20 of the members of Congress who voted for it were also in the Constittutional Convention who wrote the Constitution, including 8 who actually wrote the “natural born citizen” clause of the US Constitution.
SO, RIDDLE ME THIS BAT MAN:
If “natural born citizen” did not include people born in another country,
THEN WHY OH WHY
did the people who WROTE the US Constitution
VOTE for the 1790 Act which defined “natural born citizen” as including those born outside of the country?
The people who WROTE the “natural born citizen” clause voted for a law saying that people born in foreign countries to US citizen parents ARE “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.”
CASE CLOSED, right?
Could you possibly imagine a stronger smoking gun than that?
If you were an honest person, if you actually cared about the truth, could you possibly think of any more final, conclusive, decisive, mouth-shutting evidence than that?
The people who WROTE the “natural born citizen” clause into the Constitution
VOTED FOR a law in 1790 making it clear that people born in other countries are natural born citizens.
Debate over, right?
I mean, if you were an honest person, that is.
“because Congress was only given authority to make as citizens, those born as aliens, a.k.a. naturalization,”
SAYS WHO? That’s complete bullshit. Prove it.
” hence that Act of Congress was rightly called, the Naturalization Act of 1790”
Doesn’t matter what it is called.
IT NEVER matters what a statute is called.
Congress routinely includes hundreds of unrelated issues in the same bill.
You really are naïve if you think that the title of a bill limits its scope.
If Congress passes a law to confiscate your property it will be called the “Saving Warm Little Puppies, Helping Children, and Doing Good Things Bill of 2017.”
The Title of a bill has NEVER been a limitation on the scope of its contents.
“The Congress is not going to decide the issue of the definition of NBC. That is for the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court is going to defer to Congress.
Congress has defined “natural born citizen” since 1790.
20 of the people who wrote the Constitution were in Congress and voted for the 1790 bill that included people born in other countries as “natural born citizens.”
The US Supreme Court is going to defer to Congress.
In other words, in conclusion:
DONALD TRUMP STOLE AND CHEATED AND WON ELECTIONS EARLY ON BY LYING and saying that Ted Cruz is not eligible.
Donald Trump stole votes from Ted Cruz.
STOP LYING.
Good luck with this tactic.
The Supreme Court overrules Congress all the time. Where have you been?
Your premise regarding the 14th amendment is just wrong. I cannot help you further. You don’t sound like a lawyer or you would know that Section 5 of the 14th amendment does not give Congress the right to define who is eligible for President.
Yeah, I guess I was totally wrong:
New Jersey Judge Rules Ted Cruz Eligible To Run For President
Posted: Apr 12, 2016 6:30 PM
“You don’t sound like a lawyer or you would know that Section 5 of the 14th amendment does not give Congress the right to define who is eligible for President.”
You have to read how the US Supreme Court construes the Constitution.
The same power is granted to Congress in other places in the Constitution.
The same language as found in Section 5 is always interpreted to grant VAST power to Congress.
The Supreme Court will defer to Congress in terms of whether there is a problem, what is the appropriate solution, how to go about it, what is the scope of the problem.
So the Supreme Court will defer to Congress in defining what is the meaning of naturalization.
If Congress includes a “finding” in the statute that it is NECESSARY to implement the 14th Amendment or for naturalization
the Supreme Court will bow to Congress in Congress defining the scope of its own power.
If Congress says “we find that we need to comprehensively regulate all aspects of citizenship in order to carry out our power to set uniform rules of naturalization”
the Supreme Court will NEVER dispute this.
“The Supreme Court overrules Congress all the time. Where have you been”
No, they don’t.
Probably 70% of what the federal government does — by Congressional enactment — is unconstitutional.
Since FDR threatened the Supreme Court with the “court packing scheme,” the Supreme Court has bowed down and kissed Congress’ butt.
If the Supreme Court did not defer to Congress, 70% of what the federal government does would have been ruled unconstitutional.
There are very, very few — but very high profile — exceptions when the Supreme Court thinks that the power of Congress as exercised CLASHES with a clear fundamental right of individuals.
So if Congress tramples on fundamental constitutional rights of individuals, the Supreme Court will restrain Congress’ encroachment on actual constitutional rights.
And there is a huge liberal bias here.
The liberal bias is one reason why the Supreme Court will never find Ted Cruz ineligible. It doesn’t fit their liberal bias.
But 99.99999% of the time, the Supreme Court bows down to the floor and licks Congress’ boots.
If the DNC seriously challenges Cruz’s eligibility and all he can show is a Canadian BC and a passport they will keep him off the ballot. I don’t think Trump wants to fool with is as Cruz brings nothing to the table for him. He will win TX easily and he will either have 1237 delegates or so close Kasich can push him over the line on the first ballot.
No Secretary of State is going to keep Ted off the ballot. The DNC challenge may do it though.
In 2008 the Hawaii Democratic committee refused to validate Barack Obama for the ballot in HI because they felt his credentials were not in order. Nancy Pelosi acting for the Democrat Party sent the Secretary of State a signed affidavit swearing to them that Obama was a natural born citizen. She sent a totally differently worded statement to the other 49 state Secretaries. Subsequently the head of elections in HI used a loophole in the rules to use his own authority to validate Obama and place him on the ballot.
What are the odds that Paul Ryan will do that for Ted Cruz?
“The DNC challenge may do it though.”
They can’t. Once it has been decided, it is decided. The DNC cannot challenge Ted Cruz’s eligibility. Unless they just want to pay Ted Cruz’s legal fees as a sanction for a frivolous lawsuit.
Don’t forget that only people born on a Tuesday between 3:00 PM an 8:00 PM are natural born citizens.
It says it right there in the Constitution.
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.