Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $29,049
33%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 33% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Moseley

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 8:32:22 PM PDT · 734 of 734
    Moseley to Cboldt

    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.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 8:30:50 PM PDT · 733 of 734
    Moseley to Georgia Girl 2

    “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.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 4:05:28 PM PDT · 730 of 734
    Moseley to Georgia Girl 2

    “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.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 4:01:13 PM PDT · 729 of 734
    Moseley to Georgia Girl 2

    “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.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 3:57:00 PM PDT · 728 of 734
    Moseley to CityCenter

    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

    http://beta.townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/04/12/new-jersey-judge-rules-ted-cruz-eligible-to-run-for-president-n2147656

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 1:08:47 PM PDT · 725 of 734
    Moseley to Moseley

    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.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 1:07:45 PM PDT · 724 of 734
    Moseley to Georgia Girl 2

    “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.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 1:06:26 PM PDT · 723 of 734
    Moseley to patlin

    “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.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 1:03:49 PM PDT · 722 of 734
    Moseley to patlin

    “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.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 12:57:18 PM PDT · 721 of 734
    Moseley to Cboldt

    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.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 12:54:49 PM PDT · 720 of 734
    Moseley to Georgia Girl 2

    “I deal in the facts.”

    I wish you did, but you do not.

    “The facts are that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with the natural born citizen issue.”

    Yes it does, it empowers Congress to define who is a citizen, under what circumstances, and when. See Section 5.

    “That was not the intent”

    The intent is not relevant. What the 14th Amendment SAYS is relevant. The intent is only considered if the text is not clear.

    ” and the words natural born citizen do not appear in the 14th amendment.”

    But the 14th Amendment gives Congress unlimited power to define citizenship. So yes, in effect, “natural born citizen” is in the 14th Amendment.

    “Section 5 gives Congress the power to legislate enforcement of the 14th amendment”

    which is the definition of citizenship.

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship.

    Section 5 gives Congress the power to implement citizenship.

    Whenever an issue is unclear, that is when implementing requires definition.

    You cannot implement without clearing up any uncertainty.

    “but not the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility which is separate and apart from the 14th amendment.”

    SAYS WHO?

    That’s not how the Constitution is read, applied, or interpreted by the courts.

    When Congress wields authority delegated to it under the Constitution, that is treated VERY BROADLY — always.

    So if Congress defines natural born citizen — which the 1st Congress did in 1790 (including 20 members of congress who helped write the Constitution) — no court will dispute Congress’ vast power to do so.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 12:49:32 PM PDT · 719 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    “this from JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL is lifted from page 12 of the Venus Merchantman case as they were defining the various classes of citizens:

    Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says”

    Oh, dear Gawd, you are hopelessly naïve.

    Try reading other court cases on other topics.

    There is a STRUCTURE to the court’s opinion.

    One section is a SURVEY of ALL the possible sources of authority to reach a decision.

    A thorough court opinion summarizes anything on the topic.

    Try reading Roe v. Wade which surveys dozens of different commentaries — most of which contradict each other.

    Merely being MENTIONED does not mean that the court ACCEPTED what someone said.

    Mentioning every source on the topic is being THOROUGH.

    However, no one has ever used Vattel in US law for anything other than paper hanging in the outhouse.

    Vattel is a book about MONARCHIES.

    Vattel says that the same man can be president or prince of many countries at the same time. How does that fit your loyalty theme?

    Try READING Vattel before you post again.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 12:45:53 PM PDT · 717 of 734
    Moseley to Cboldt

    “Your claim that the court found Bellie to be “not naturalized, period,” is false”

    No, I am correct and you are false.

    Again, you read court cases like a 5 year old reading a technical manual for a nuclear power plant. Sorry, but that’s the reality.

    FIRST, you do understand that a dissent has no legal meaning or effect, right?

    The dissent is just COMMENTARY by judges who lost the vote and whose opinions were not adopted by the court. You do understand that, right?

    SECOND, when judges are exploring the different legal analyses, they are NOT saying that it is actually true. They are arguing that EVEN IF this were true, we would come to the same result.

    The majority found that Congress DOES have the power to strip citizenship even from a natural born citizen.

    Being naturalized has absolutely nothing to do with the case.

    It is 100% impossible to be naturalized at birth. It cannot happen. Not ever.

    There has never been a child naturalized at birth in the history of the planet and there never will be.

    THIRD, the statement “the conclusion is compelled that the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to persons ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time”

    has you completely confused.

    They are talking about someone born overseas but naturalized in the United States. THAT MEANS THEY ARE NATURALIZED *AFTER* THEY ARE BORN, at some LATER time.

    You cannot see past your assumptions and preferences to understand what you are reading.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 12:40:07 PM PDT · 716 of 734
    Moseley to Cboldt

    “The case turned on the distinction between “naturalized in the US” and “natrualized outside of the US.””

    No, it did not.

    Absurd.

    Rogers v. Bellei turned on whether Bellei had complied with the STATUTE.

    And it turned on whether Bellei had anything to lose.

    How could Bellei lose his citizenship if he never had it to being with?

    HMMMM??

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 12:28:48 PM PDT · 714 of 734
    Moseley to Cboldt

    “You are reading that as “not natrualized,” period”

    Yes, I am, because you are trying to find things in the court case that are not there.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 10:29:27 AM PDT · 706 of 734
    Moseley to patlin

    And what does this mean in Rogers v. Bellei:

    ““that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law EXCEPT BY STATUTE. . . .””

    So, in 1790 those who wrote the Constitution passed a statute, and Congress has been enacting different variations ever since.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 10:27:32 AM PDT · 705 of 734
    Moseley to patlin

    I have read it in great detail, long ago.

    But you do not even read what you post.

    Rogers v. Bellie says:

    “He was not naturalized in the United States.”

    See? You cannot be naturalized at birth.

    Rogers v. Bellei does NOT say that Bellei was naturalized at birth, because such a thing is impossible.

    Bellei was made a citizen at birth.

    Otherwise, what was there to be taken away?

    How can the courts take away citizenship if Bellei never had it?

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 10:24:32 AM PDT · 704 of 734
    Moseley to Georgia Girl 2

    “In 2008 when John McCain’s eligibility was called into question the Senate voted a “resolution” stating that he was a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President. A resolution of the Senate carries no weight of law whatsoever”

    That is correct because it is AFTER the fact.

    The Senate cannot pass a law 50 years after someone is born making them a natural born citizen.

    Even if the Senate and the House passed a law and the President signed it, it could not work because it was passed AFTER McCain was born — like 50 years or more, maybe 70, after McCain was born.

    So it was a stupid gesture.

    But if Congress passed a law and the president signed it saying that children born in a foreign country are not natural born citizens, that would take effect as to any children born AFTER the law is signed into law by the president.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 10:21:46 AM PDT · 703 of 734
    Moseley to Georgia Girl 2

    “four previous times throughout history that the SCOTUS has touched on the issue they have acknowledged born in the US of two US parents.”

    The four previous times, the Supreme Court was deciding SOME OTHER QUESTION.

    You have to first identify what the “question(s) presented” are that the court is deciding.

    NOTHING ELSE has any meaning.

    Only the question being decided counts.

    The court case has no relevance to any other question.

    However, the Supreme Court has never said anyone is NOT a natural born citizen because of XYZ.

    This is the brain damage of the eligibility crusaders.

    When the Supreme Court says that THIS particular person IS a natural born citizen...

    ... that does NOT mean that others are not.

    A child born on US soil to US citizen parents clearly is a natural born citizen.

    But nowhere have the courts ever said that someone is NOT a natural born citizen under other circumstances.

    You simply refuse to engage in simple logic.

    If my Nissan Altima is a car.

    That does NOT mean your vehicle is NOT a car because it is not a Nissan Altima.

    My Nissan Altima is a car.

    Someone else’s Corvette is ALSO a car.


    Let’s try it like this:

    Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois and he is a natural born citizen.

    So — according to your misreading of the Supreme Court cases —

    someone born in Florida is NOT a natural born citizen because (you think) * O N L Y * people born in Illinois are natural born citizens.

    That is your logic.

    One case says ‘obviously this person is a natural born citizen.’

    You erroneously think that that EXCLUDES other people under different circumstances.

    So....

    A child born on US soil is a natural born citizen.

    AND ALSO a child born in Canada to a US parent is a natural born citizen.

    They are * B O T H * natural born citizens, though born under different circumstances.

    There is some of the brain damage:

    NONE of the court precedents have EVER decided that someone is NOT a natural born citizen.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 10:15:42 AM PDT · 702 of 734
    Moseley to Just mythoughts

    “You think Moses was not considered an Egyptian? Seriously?”

    Moses was considered an Egyptian because Pharoah’s daughter CLAIMED that Moses was HER son.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 10:14:41 AM PDT · 701 of 734
    Moseley to Just mythoughts

    “No where can you document that a mother married to a foreigner, can bequeath ‘natural born’ US citizenship birthing that child on foreign soil...”

    Yes, I can:

    14 U.S.C. 1401(g)

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    But it is not a MOTHER who is bequeathing citizenship.

    It is the power delegated to Congress under the U.S. Constitution that is “bequeathing” the status of natural born citizen.

    The mother does not give citizenship to the child.

    The law exercising constitutional authority gives citizenship to the child.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 10:12:35 AM PDT · 700 of 734
    Moseley to Just mythoughts

    “IF Cruz were the ‘face of Jesus’ he would show exactly what paperwork he used to get a US passport. “

    REALLY?

    So will you show us the paperwork YOU used to get a US passport?

    I have had a US passport for about 40 years.

    I don’t have a copy of my application from 40 years ago.

    Do you?

    No, of course you don’t.

    But the fact that Ted Cruz does have a US passport says all we need to know.

    At least 30 years ago The US State Department determined that Ted Cruz was a US citizen.

    Case closed.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 8:26:14 AM PDT · 695 of 734
    Moseley to AFret.

    “I was adopted by an American military family”

    An adoption is not naturalization.

    But adoption DOES help thick-headed people understand the Constitution.

    One can be the NATURAL child of parents.

    Or one can be the ADOPTED child of parents, created by operation of law.

    So a NATURAL born citizen is one who is a citizen NOT through a legal procedure.

    A citizen who is not a natural born citizen is a citizen through a legal proceeding — similar to being adopted.


    ” upon US entry at Boston, a 3 minute hearing was conducted in chambers where the judge signed the naturalization documents”

    Absolutely false.

    There had to be MONTHS of previous paperwork, applications, court decisions, etc.

    I am doing an adoption right now.

    You have to provide notice to the biological parents, get their consent, get everything in order.

    My friend from Eastern Europe became a US citizen last year.

    It took her 10 years to become a US citizen.

    The final swearing in ceremony took maybe 10 minutes.

    But there were 10 years of preparation BEFORE that final day.

    It is impossible to be naturalized at birth.

    NOTE: We are not talking about being an infant. We are talking about AT BIRTH — at the moment of birth.

    Ted Cruz was a US citizen at the moment he took his first breath. So he is a natural born citizen.

    You cannot be naturalized at the moment of birth. That is utter nonsense.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 8:20:51 AM PDT · 694 of 734
    Moseley to Just mythoughts

    ” it still reads ‘’ natural born “ akin to a birthright... Esau.”

    well that is interesting because in the Bible citizenship follows the parents, NOT THE PLACE OF BIRTH.

    The child of Israelites born in Egypt was an Israelite NOT an Egyptian.

    The Bible was the dominant influence over our Founders’ education and thinking.

    So the birthright is based on the PARENTS — not the place of birth.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 8:18:36 AM PDT · 693 of 734
    Moseley to Just mythoughts

    “The Founders state with all perfect clarity that to hold the office of President one must be ‘natural born’. “

    Correct, and Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

    The Constitution DOES NOT suggest that “natural born” means what you think it means.

    You are the one changing the Constitution to fit what you want it to say.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:49:09 AM PDT · 690 of 734
    Moseley to patlin

    “therefore, the only way for him to be a citizen is under Congress’s authority to naturalize him at birth because his mother was a US citizen. “

    Utter nonsense. It is impossible to be naturalized at birth.

    What, is there a judge standing in the delivery room to administer the oath to the baby as the baby pops out?

    Naturalization is a process that takes 5-10 years, including an application, a citizenship test, a medical test, a review by the government, an official decision, and a swearing in ceremony.

    The concept of being “naturalized at birth” is total bullshit. No such thing exists.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:47:10 AM PDT · 689 of 734
    Moseley to patlin

    ” Congress was ONLY given authority over those who were born aliens, a.k.a. citizens of another country”

    No, that is false. Congressional power over naturalization includes ANY AND ALL aspects of citizenship under ANY AND ALL circumstances.

    That had been the actual, real-world precedent under the British Parliament for 100 years before the Constitution was written.

    That is what the Founders understood.

    that is how the Constitution is read and applied.

    Grants of Congressional power are broad, not narrow.

    For example, where does it say that the President has the power to fire the head of a department? It is included within the broad power to supervise the heads of departments. It is not explicitly stated.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:45:03 AM PDT · 688 of 734
    Moseley to patlin

    “And the 14th Amendment gives no such power to Congress except that of naturalization because the 14th states, all person born “IN” the United States, PERIOD”

    No, Section 5 gives Congress vast power to define citizenship by implementing it.

    You don’t understand Constitutional law or how courts apply the Constitution.

    Section 5 gives Congress almost unlimited power to implement citizenship, which means Congress can define who is a citizen.

    Constitutional amendments are read BROADLY not in the narrow way that you imagine.

    So the “necessary and proper” clause and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment — combined with the lack of any definition in the Constitution — gives Congress AND ONLY CONGRESS vast power to define who is a natural born citizen and decide any other questions about citizenship.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:36:42 AM PDT · 685 of 734
    Moseley to Freee-dame

    “Do you think that Dems will just “let it go” if there is not verifiable proof? “

    Doesn’t matter. First, the question has already been decided. The courts do not allow you to come back in and file the same lawsuit all over again.

    Second, the burden of proof is on the challenger, not on Ted Cruz. So they all lose.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:35:16 AM PDT · 684 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    “The only Congressional definition of NBC was that phony ass non-binding Senate Resolution 511”

    No, Congress has defined who is a natural born citizen since 1790.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:34:15 AM PDT · 683 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    “You are acting as though the framers did not have a common understanding of NBC.”

    They did not.

    If they did, it would have come from THE BIBLE which was the dominant influence on the Founders.

    Under the Bible, citizenship is based on the parents, not the place of birth.

    Israelites born in Egypt were Israelites, not Egyptians.

    So if the founders had a common understanding, it was the BIBLICAL model that citizenship at birth follows the citizenship of the parents — not the place of birth.

    Second, the English precedent was the same.

    Nobody takes Vattel seriously, not even the French.

    Third, ownership of a book does not mean that anyone followed it.

    Thomas Jefferson owned several Korans because as President HE WAS AT WAR WITH ISLAM. He did not agree with it because he owned a copy of the Koran.

    What you fail to understand is that the Founders read E V E R Y T H I N G.

    They were highly educated, avid readers, had no TV’ or movies or video games, and read HUNDREDS of books.

    So the idea that they had access to Vattel is an absurd assumption.

    They did not take a private book by a private commentator seriously.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:29:49 AM PDT · 682 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    “That alone should enable you to divine the true intent of the framers by simply acknowledging the unique singularity of this provision. Any other of the constitutional offices of the federal government may be assumed by being a US citizen of any other type”

    That’s why the President has to actually live in the United States for 14 years.

    But curiously a President at the minimum age of 35 only has to live 14 years inside the United States.

    The founders thought it was just fine for a President to live 60% (21 years) of his minimum 35 years in a foreign country.

    That kind of blows the hell out of your sentimental argument, doesn’t it?

    If the founders felt as you argue, why didn’t they say the president has to live all 35 minimum years inside the United States?

    Why did they say it is okay for the President to live 21 years of his 35 minimum years in a foreign country?

    Sort of blows your argument to shreds, don’t you think?

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:27:15 AM PDT · 681 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    “Natural born citizen has only applied to FORTY FOUR people in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the US. It has constitutional applicability to ONLY ONE purpose, and that is eligibility to assume the office of POTUS”

    That is part of the reason why none of the precedents that people try to point to have any meaning or relevance.

    The only court that has EVER decided who is eligible to be President as a natural born citizen in the history of the nation is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision deciding that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

    The only case in the history of the country that has ever decided this question is the one deciding that Ted Cruz is eligible to be President as a natural born citizen.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:25:05 AM PDT · 680 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    “Here is a reference from the Virginia Law Review “

    Law reviews are only OPINIONS by lawyers, usually new graduates.

    The purpose of law reviews is to CONTRAST competing opinions.

    The way to get published in a law review is to write something controversial that conflicts with prevailing opinion.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:24:05 AM PDT · 679 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    “You again are ignoring the inclusion of the 212th paragraph taken in whole from the Law of Nations in the Venus Merchantman decision of 1814 as they defined what a NBC was”

    The Venus Merchantman decision has nothing to do with who is a natural born citizen. NOTHING whatsoever.

    The case is about whether a citizen of England’s property can be seized as part of the War of 1812.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:20:53 AM PDT · 678 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    “Dozens of US federal appellate court cases have cited Vattel”

    No, they have not. I have searched in the legal databases.

    Vattel is not considered meaningful EVEN IN HIS OWN COUNTRY, FRANCE.

    Not even France pays any attention to Vattel.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:19:29 AM PDT · 677 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    “Unlike many ignorant folks here today, everyone then knew what a NBC was, and yes they did adopt Vattel’s definition. “

    No, they did not. That is a total fantasy made up in your dream world.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:18:25 AM PDT · 676 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    “You continually invoke the absurd syllogistic premise that since the constitution isn’t a dictionary, it is impossible to discern the true intention of the framers.”

    No, that is a false summary of my argument and reality.

    Because the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen” — and nothing else does, either, despite your efforts to gin up one —

    it is the duty of Congress to resolve any uncertainties by filling in the gaps.

    It is the very lack of a definition that empowers Congress to define natural born citizen under the “necessary and proper” clause and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

    Congress has power to define who is a natural born citizen.

    That is the core of the issue.

    You think Congress does not have that power.

    You are wrong. Congress DOES have that power.

    Congress has exercised that power since 1790.

    No court is ever going to tell Congress you can’t do that.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:15:20 AM PDT · 675 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    By contrast, your beloved Vattel — who nobody takes seriously, not even in his home country of France — argues that a man CAN be the prince or head of many countries at once.

    So under Vattel’s “Law of Nations” Winston Churchill COULD be simultaneously Prime Minister of Great Britain and President of the United States — both at the same time.

    That’s why it is so laughable that people try to prop up Vattel as if any one cares what Vattel says.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:11:11 AM PDT · 674 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    The Constitution does not say what you WANT or what I WANT>

    The Constitution says what it says.

    That is a major part of the brain damage here.

    IT doesn’t matter whether you like it or don’t like it.

    It only matters what the document SAYS.

    Under the Constitution, if Winston Churchill had lived in the United States for 14 years — he did not — and if the law defining citizenship at the time had made him a US citizen — it did not, it was different than the law passed in 1952, and if his mother had lived for 10 years in the United States, 5 of those years over the age of 14 — she did not as far as I am aware,

    then Winston Church would be eligible to be President of the United States.

    Do you like that? WHO CARES? Do you approve? WHO CARES? The Constitution says what it says whether you like it or not.

    But of course if Winston Churchill claimed US citizenship from birth, he would be rejecting citizenship in the United Kingdom.

    So he could ONLY run in the United States.

    He COULD NOT be an elected official at any level in the United Kingdom.

    Like my sister who was born in Panama, in the same hospital Gorgas Hospital, as John McCain,

    NOTE: Gorgas Hospital is NOT on U.S. soil, it is not on the base or U.S. territory,

    who had to choose whether to claim U.S. citizenship or Panamanian citizenship and had to disclaim Panamanian citizenship when she was an adult and old enough to make legal decisions,

    Winston Churchill would have forfeited any claim to be a UK citizen if he claimed U.S. citizenship.

    My sister flew with us as a family to Europe on a US PASSPORT as young as 5 years old, even though she was born in Panama.

    My sister can run for President if she wants.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:03:53 AM PDT · 673 of 734
    Moseley to patlin

    ““Congress ONLY has authority to make citizens through the process of naturalization. “
    Says who?

    It’s called the Constitution of the United States”

    WHERE in the Constitution does it say that Congress only has the authority to make citizens through the process of naturalization.

    BE CAREFUL: First read Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. then read the “necessary and proper clause”

    The Constitution DOES explicitly give Congress that power. See Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 7:02:06 AM PDT · 672 of 734
    Moseley to patlin

    Under our Constitution, distinctions between the legal rights of males and females have been erased.

    You cannot discriminate between husbands and fathers.

    And the governing law when Ted Cruz was born makes no distinction between fathers or mothers. See 14 USC 1401(g).

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 5:28:26 AM PDT · 667 of 734
    Moseley to patlin

    “Congress ONLY has authority to make citizens through the process of naturalization. “

    Says who?

    That’s only your fantasy.

    Your crusade hangs on that fantasy.

    You just made that up out of the clear blue sky.

    For 100 years before the American revolution, the British parliament was using the power of naturalization to define who is a “natural born subject.”

    That is the example that the framers followed:

    Congress has the power to define “natural born citizen” by statute just as the UK parliament had been doing for at least 100 years before then.


    Natural born are defined by “nature” hence the term “natural”.

    Correct: One can be a NATURAL BORN son or an ADOPTED son by an artificial legal process.

    If one is born NATURALLY a citizen, they are a natural born citizen.

    If one is an ARTIFICIAL citizen — by a legal process of naturalization — they are a non-natural citizen because they went through a naturalization process.

    BTW naturalization takes 5-10 years.

    Don’t repeat the utter bullshit that one can be “naturalized at birth” which is complete horse manure.

    It takes 5-10 years to be naturalized, including taking the oath of citizenship and being sworn in by a judge.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 5:23:20 AM PDT · 666 of 734
    Moseley to DMZFrank

    “No constitutional provision can be modified by statute absent the Article V amendment process.”

    But the constitution is NOT being modified. You keep fantasizing that your definition of “natural born citizen” is in the Constitution.

    Because there is nothing in the Constitution defining what is a natural born citizen, it is Congress’ job to define “natural born citizen.”

    You can’t modify something THAT IS NOT THERE.

    What you can’t wrap your head around is that the Constitution DOES NOT SAY what you want it to say.


    “The intent of Article II, Sec i, clause 5 was to protect the office of POTUS from undue and baleful foreign influence, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty”.

    Doesn’t matter what the intent was. It only matters what it SAYS.

    Do you imagine that the Constitutional Convention all agreed?

    You have no idea what ALL of the voting members intended.

    The Constitutional convention spent most of their time disagreeing with each other.


    “This reflects the patriarchical belief of the framers, derived from the vattelian notion that the citizenship condition of the children followed that of the father.”

    No one takes Vattel seriously. Why is it that EVEN THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT does not pay any attention to Vattel?

    The Framers followed THE BIBLE and they followed BRITISH precedents — not a private book that isn’t even taken seriously by the French government.

    The Framers followed the BIBLICAL example in which the citizenship of the child follows the parents.

    Israelites born in Egypt were Israelites, not Egyptians.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/12/2016 5:10:17 AM PDT · 665 of 734
    Moseley to Georgia Girl 2

    “Your misunderstanding of standing is pathetic. Do you even know what standing in a court of law means? It means you could be damaged.”

    Yes, I have litigated the concept of standing and through the law firm I did the work on, I have appeals pending in US Court of Appeals right now.

    I just authored a friend of the court brief in the US Supreme Court challenging standing.

    The concept of standing is a complete fabrication by the courts. They say it comes from the Constitution, but it does not. Judges just made it up.

    And judges have made inconsistent rulings and it has gotten worse and worse. It is all wrong and needs to be reformed, as Judge Janice Rogers Brown forcefully argued in Arpaio v. Obama on amnesty.

    But you are wrong when you say that standing means you “COULD” be damaged.

    That is not enough.

    Now, I agree that judges just made these rules up out of the clear blue sky and they need to be repealed by Congress.

    But you must show IMMEDIATE injury “in fact”

    You cannot show that you “COULD” be damaged.

    You have to show that you WILL be damaged.

    It is a very high hurdle. For example, Sheriff Arpaio was found not to have standing to challenge Obama’s amnesty despite proving that it cost him over $9 million to house illegal aliens who keep coming back again and again in his jails.

    “too speculative’ the D.C. Circuit said.

    The US Supreme Court refused to take that appeal, although they did take the appeal from Texas v. United States.

    So the problem with standing as to who is a natural born citizen is that if you don’t like Ted Cruz, don’t vote for him. That’s how the courts analyze it.

    In effect, you (a plaintiff) are trying to DEPRIVE OTHER VOTERS of their choice to vote for a candidate.

    You (a plaintiff) are asserting standing to DENY SOMEONE ELSE their vote.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/11/2016 1:50:52 PM PDT · 642 of 734
    Moseley to eastforker

    All of the children of the Founders were BOTH natural born citizens of the United States as well as qualified to be citizens of England.

    In fact the Red Coats came back in 1812 to rejoin the colonies to the United Kingdom.

    All of those who wrote the COnstitution had children who could be EITHER natural born citizens of the USA and also citizens of England — at the same time.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/11/2016 1:47:02 PM PDT · 641 of 734
    Moseley to eastforker

    “Except Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada, not the USA.”

    No, Ted Cruz is and can be both.

    Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of the United States.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/11/2016 1:45:56 PM PDT · 640 of 734
    Moseley to Just mythoughts

    “Ah what you are attempting to do is to ‘re-define’ the meaning of ‘natural born’. “

    You cannot REdefine what is undefined.

    Congress defined “natural born citizen” in the 1790 statute and again later in 14 USC 1401(g) — the statute in force when Ted Cruz was born.

    Congress defined “natural born citizen” for the first time in 1790.

    They did not “redfine” it because the Constitution did not define it.

    And if the people who wrote the Constitution were so certain of its meaning as what you suggest,

    then WHY did the vote in 1790 for an entirely different meaning of “natural born citizen?”

    Didn’t they know in 1790 what you claim they knew a few years earlier?

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/11/2016 1:43:13 PM PDT · 639 of 734
    Moseley to Just mythoughts

    “The Framers knew darn well what ‘natural born’ meant...”

    Oh, how do you know that? Did you conduct a séance?

    “What you are ignoring is the history of how the Framers came up with the requirement of ‘natural born’.”

    Irrelevant, because that does not clarify the meaning.

    “They used it specifically as required qualification to hold the office of president.”

    Yes, that is like writing your name on the paper and expecting an A. So what? That is just stating the obvious.

    I do not say these things to be mean.

    But deprogramming from a cult is a painful process of reconnecting with reality.

    So you state the beginning as if it were the conlusion.

    ” They NEVER allow any authority to redefine its original meaning.”

    It didn’t have any original meaning. If there were an original meaning, they would have stated it in the constitution.

    What you fail to understand is that the Constitutional Convention was a COMMITTEE. They often could not agree among themselves and deliberately kicked the can down the road on some things.

    The Framers of the Constitution intentionally left it to Congress to define “natural born citizen.”

    Trump is the one who forced the Obama crew to produce a born in the USA birth certificate for Obama... Nobody is ever going to produce a born in the USA birth certificate for Ted Cruz.

    Ah what you are attempting to do is to ‘re-define’ the meaning of ‘natural born’.

  • Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

    04/11/2016 1:39:06 PM PDT · 636 of 734
    Moseley to stephenjohnbanker

    “You sure seem to have a lot of time to waste here : )”

    Right back at ya. I am backing off on what kept me busy then.

    However, writing a friend of the court brief would take easily 2-4 weeks, not just a few hours as here.