Eh??
20 posted on 5/12/2010, 3:03:41 PM by 2ndDivisionVet (Don’t care if he was born in a manger on July 4th! A “Natural Born” citizen requires two US parents!)
Posted on 04/14/2016 1:49:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If you are claiming he is not a NBC, then we are all back to the same, long discredited pseudo-legal argument that he is not a NBC because:
He is not a “native born” citizen,
Both his parents were not citizens,
He is left-handed,
It is the only argument some have against him. There are plenty of things that are not ideal about Mr. Cruz. Concentrating on this non-issue is a fool’s errand.
We are a nation of laws, not my opinion, not yours, not anarchy,
The law, as passed by Congress, and upheld by SCOTUS says he is a NBC.
If you don’t like it, gather enough support to pass a constitutional amendment defining it otherwise.
Otherwise.....
And you accuse us of lying.
A point germane to this discussion is that Barry never claimed to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. He claimed, on his own website, Stopthesmears.com, to have been born "a subject of the British Commonwealth", "by the British Nationality act of 1948. Barry told us, honestly and precisely, that he was "native-born", which, in the language of our first "Uniform Rule of Naturalization", the 14th Amendment; native-born in the 14th Amendment refers to anyone born on our sovereign soil. Barry continued his description with "citizen" - "I am a native-born citizen of the U.S.". While there might be questions about his alien father's jurisdiction while in the U.S. on a student visa, U.S. code based upon the 14th Amendment passed in the 20th century made him a citizen because his mother was a citizen.
Ted Cruz' was not born on our soil. But Barry, having the same constitutional law professor as Ted, had the integrity never to claim natural born citizenship for himself. Were Ted the "constitutional conservative" he claims to be, he never would have earned the title "hypocrite", meaning liar, used by Larry Tribe to describe his "brilliant" "originalist" student in the January 11, 2016 Boston Globe.
To see further hypocrisy on this very issue read for yourselves the excellent description of "Conservative" and "Originalist" in Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, "On The Constitution", p36. Levin, now best known for his non-stop infomercial for Ted, says: "The Conservative is an orgiginalist, for he believes that much like a contract, The Constitution sets forth certain terms and conditions that hold the same meaning today as they did yesterday and should tomorrow." ..."If the Constitution's meaning can be erased or rewritten and the Framers' intensions ignored, it ceases to be a a constitution but is instead a concoction of political expedients that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it".
Mark continues with a quotation of James Madison' which clarified for this writer the reasoning behind the framer's explicit omission of term definitions in the Constitution. "If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the the words composing it, it is evident that the shapes and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject." Mark continued "To say that the Constitution is a "living and breathing document" is to give license to arbitrary and lawless activism." Mark, who now cites honest "living and breathing document" proponent Larry Tribe, who just happened to skip the nullification of the 1790 Naturalization Act in his letter the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on SR 511, the Obama/Clinton/McCaskill resolution to declare John McCain a natural born citizen. Levine used Tribe's citation of a dead law, which could not have had effect anyway since Congress cannot amend or interpret Supreme Court decisions, but had already been changed in 1795 by Madison and Washington. Larry Tribe and Barack didn't lie. They are admitted "living and breathing" constitutional progressives. Ted, the self-proclaimed "conservative", now reinterprets the Constitution with former originalist Levin. Could large remainder purchases of Levin's books have anything to do with it? Could future legal work for Landmark Legal Foundation, contracts certainly controlled by GOP elites be turning Mark into a believer in a "living Constitution"?
As Mark might have said seven or eight years ago, read original sources. Here is just a taste, for which I thank RXSID; whoever he is, he is clearly a scholar, and pointed out this work as we at FR explored Obama's eligibility - or not. From Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, "Of Constitutions":
"if there is any Government where prerogatives might, with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal Government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the Constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country."
"The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of parliament, but he may be what is called a King. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners it ought to be from those offices where mischief can be most acted, and where by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured."There is much more brilliance in Paine's work, by which most of today's political analysis pales. in this chapter. When Paine said "...must be a native of the country", he was using American common-law, cited and confirmed in Minor v. Happersett, used in Supreme Court cases from the 1790s until at least 1939, cited in Perkins v. Elg. Until the 14th Amendment's many derivative construction, without applications for naturalization, both Obama and Cruz would have been born aliens or foreigners. Wong Kim Ark, born to parents on our soil was made a citizen at birth by the Supreme Court in 1898, but never a natural born citizen, explicitly stated by Gray in the decision. Bot Wong Kim was born on our soil, to parents who had clearly accepted U.S. jurisdiction. China forbade repudiation of citizenship, but his parents were registered "domiciled" residents.
Why no answer to my question 2DV?
You now siding with nobama? Strange bedfellows this Trump has.
Maybe you could have posted post link that way we wouldn’t have to rely on your say-so.
Regardless of what 2DV said in 2010, nobama’s worst NBC issue was that his dear Mother was not old enough to confer NBC outside the USA.
Now in English.
The trumpers have ridden that horse so long they are bow-legged.
If the following words were removed from trumper vocabulary, all we would see are blank posts.
Canada
Goldman Sachs
Liar
Sleazy
I may have missed a few.
Blank posts?
I, along with plenty others, have been asking the following questions for months. You Cruz freaks will always ignore them, just like you will do so now. You will probably only repeat your snarky post.
Yeah, you missed a few:
1. Cruz’s lobbying for TPA, writing articles in defense of, and his vote (twice — once to bring it up for a vote, and then his vote for it). Sessions warned him about TPA withdrawing Congressional authority over immigration, Cruz said it did not. When the bill came back to the Senate from the House after passage, and when his vote was no longer needed for passage, Cruz voted against it. His excuse: he did not know the immigration language was in the bill.
2. Cruz complained about the Corker bill when it was before the Senate, then he voted FOR the bill, which strengthens the main terrorist nation on earth, then immediately began complaining about it, for some reason neglecting to mention that he voted for it. Limbaugh and Levin also forget to mention he voted for it. He makes the idiotic assertion on his website that he voted for the Corker bill to delay its implementation.
3. Cruz wanted to increase H1-B visas by 500%.
4. Last December, his campaign manager says Cruz wants to increase legal immigration.
5. He told a voter a few months ago that our immigration system is “broken”; code word for amnesty for illegals.
6. He said that legalization of illegals was only common sense.
7. Claims he was for a wall all along, but had never mentioned it while in the Senate until Trump started pressing it.
8. Never opposed the trade deals until the Wisconsin primary, and then echoed Trump almost verbatim.
9. Cruz refuses to release his U.S. citizenship verification document(s), the ones that are normally required for job applications from any job applicants anywhere in the United States (mandated by the 1986 immigration bill).
Was there ever any doubt? Nobody seriously believed there would be a different outcome. Much ado about nothing.
I, and the courts, respectfully disagree with your argument
Many years ago, as the American POWs were being released in Hanoi, the well-placed and often quoted U.S. Army historian Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshal met PAVN General Giap.
Marshal (after a few of his customary martinis) tried to get into Giap’s face and said, “You know, General, any time... in fact every time... significant US Army or Marine forces met your North Vietnamese forces in a a major battle, we won!”
Giap thought for few moments, and politely replied, “Entirely true.... and entirely meaningless.”
Such are the arguments about Cruz and the citizenship issue for two reasons.
First, the current U.S Code 1401 defines a “natural born citizen.” Such definition has been upheld by SCOTUS. That means what I think may be entirely true... or entirely wrong. Likewise the opposite belief may be correct, or entirely false.
Neither matters one iota... and that part of it is settled as agreed by everyone who is not an anarchist. We may not like the law, but SCOTUS’s opinions count, not ours.
We may not like it, but that’s “house rules” in the good old US of A.
If we don’t like it, we can elect representatives who will pass a constitutional amendment saying otherwise.
But the second part is perhaps worse.
If Cruz was smart, he’d would have done a “Rocky Balboa” (after his opponent kept hitting Rocky) whenever anyone brought up the issue and said:
“Is that all you got? That’s the best you’ve got?”
US law says I’m a natural born citizen, period.
“Trumps screeching and angry child finger pointing? It’s bunk and every court has said it’s bunk! Anyone bringing up that bunk is trying to fog the issue because they are afraid people will agree with me on the issues, not this phony pseudo-citicenship issue.”
“Is that all Trump’s got!?!?!”
“When he couldn’t beat Carley Fiorina on the issues, he intimated she was ugly. When he couldn’t best Marco, he started talking about his size of his you know what. Think about it, Trump couldn’t even out-argue Marco, Marco Rubia!!! He couldn’t even debate... even Marco ...on the issues, so The Donald has to go back to his fear and insult tactics.”
“Think about it, he couldn’t even out-argue Marco Rubio!!!”
“Citizenship - Smitizenship... Every court says it’s bunk. Come back when you want to talk about the real issues that are going to affect Americans wallets, their lives, their security.... but not this phony BS.”
NO , I’M NOT SAYING I’M A CRUZ SUPPORTER, but that’s how Cruz should have handled it.
Yes, and distorting even more. Like trying to say Romney hasn't endorsed Ted Cruz. Let's just say that Mitt Romney has done everything but endorse Ted Cruz, OK?
I hope that's not too controversial of a statement...
U.S. Code doesn't say anything about natural born citizenship. The one time in our history in which U.S. Code, the 1790 Naturalization Act, was mentioned, Congress quickly realized its mistake and that act was rescinded in 1795, with the phrase "natural born citizen" replaced with "citizen". That mistake was never repeated.
There is lots of conjecture about how that mistake was made, a "naturalization Act" of Congress altering a definition based upon a distinctly different class in the Constitution, the class eligible to the presidency is logically decoupled from authority to create an Uniform Rule for Naturalization. Congress, were the construction acceptable, could reconstruct the Constitution, changing protections into rights, militia into military, taxes into loans as King William II, who had promised "no new taxes" pleaded, before losing his head (I may have misremembered the King, but recall the historical event.) But Congress never again made that mistake.
Natural born citizenship was defined as positive law in Minor v. Happersett in 1875. It became precedent, because Virginia Minor's status before the 14th Amendment was at issue, and the decision had no meaning if she were not a constitutional citizen. Natural born citizens were the only constitutionally defined citizens before the 14th Amendment's definition of who became citizens at birth. Citizens at birth were not equal to natural born citizens. The author of the 14th Amendment made that clear and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark confirmed that fact. Only a reversal of Minor v. Happersett can alter that definition, not to say that it can't be done.
You are sounding like the Obots of seven or eight years ago, who don't mind being wrong. They know that lies repeated often enough begin to be accepted by some as truth. So I expect to see you back again challenging, in case readers are influence by assertiveness that perhaps what you say is true. In the Obot days we had some who admitted to being paid by Anita Dunn's White House propaganda group, though there was no way to confirm the claim other than reading original sources.
In your case, quote a passage from U.S. Code 1401 that defines "natural born citizenship". Of course, there is none. But I'm still betting that you will try that ploy again because, like Ted Cruz, your objective has nothing to do with truth, except that you may have chosen some group to argue for. In Ted's case, either party could force the Supreme Court to remove Ted, were he to get that far. But the junior courts will sadly do whatever their political bosses tell them to do, no matter how embarrassing it may be to concoct legal, logical, and rhetorical nonsense to avoid having to take a position that might put a political outsider in a position to disrupt to payola.
U.S. naturalization code is based upon the 14th Amendment, "an Uniform Rule for Naturalizaton", from Article 1 Section 8. Article II Section 1 Clause V has never been amended, and has no connection with naturalization, just as no one can be "naturalized" a "natural" born citizen. The adjective "natural" comes from "Nature's Law" cited in the first paragraph of the Declaration. U.S. Code is not Natural Law, it is man's law, created by Congressmen.
In Perkins v. Elg, little Marie Elg was born in NY to naturalized Swedish parents. Dad got offered a job back "home" (think about why we require natural born citizen for Comm. in Chief), and left baby and Mom, calling them to return after a year or two. Marie was raised in Sweden, but decided to return "home" at majority. The AG said she needed to naturalize. The Supreme Court said Marie was born to citizen parents on U.S. soil, a natural born citizen, a condition granted by God that could not be denied by men (Congress). "Marie, should she so decide, after suitable residence and attaining the age of 35, is eligible to the presidency if she wishes (paraphrase).
The claims of Obots, and now Cruzbots, have no authority when all nine justices deciding Minor v. Happersett confirmed the only definition, quoted in dozens of cases, for which Chief Justice Marshall recommended Vattel's compendium of Nature's Law and The Law of Nations as the most concise. There are many more obscure sources, which, if you try to read them, help to explain why Vattel was the reference for Natural Law preferred by Hamilton, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Munroe, Marshall, Waite, Gray, and on and on. We are all being played, often by presumed authorities who themselves have never taken the time to read Thomas Paine, let alone Montesque, or Pufendorf, or Locke. As James Carville once advised, "Follow the money!"
And my point for those Cruzer that argue Cruz IS NBC under the law
Its irrelevant.
there’s enough ambiguity and the ground is already been prepped by the Obama birthers that the powerful can easily have the Court rule Cruz not on NBC
so all cruzer legal arguments trying to say Cruz is and NBC.... it doesn’t matter because the court and the people in DC have enough room to rule Cruz is not NBC
the way the law is now and the way the courts are now if Cruz was a liberal Dem they he probably would be ruled an NBC
But a right-wing Republican?.. know you’re not going to get ruleing in Cruz favor ....
is the point of the whole election that their corrupt in DC.... the ambiguity in the law favors the powerful
All meaningless legal hogwash. Please show any case where any court of final jurisdiction ever held that George Romney, John McCain or Ted Cruz were ineligible to be president due to their citizenship status..
Of course, there are none. Only fools pursue fools’ erands.
Attack Crus all you want on his shortcommings, but the NBC issue makes its proponents look boorish
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.