Posted on 01/24/2016 10:14:49 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Your going to have to take that up with Trump and his buddies over at NBC.
That’s a really clever name you got there for us Trump supporters.
Did you make that up all by yourself?
You Cruz supporters seem incredibly gifted in the name calling department.
I guess when that’s all you got, you have to go with it.
“I didn’t, so why are you accusing me of it?”
I re-read your comments more carefully. I apologize for implying you were forcing your views on the rest of us. When you said “we” would be bearing false witness, I misunderstood that you were saying all of us on this forum. But you did not say or imply that. I should have read more carefully.
“Show me the exact phrase *natural born* in the applicable law. (BTW - if you’re made a citizen by statue, your aren’t natural born)”
The first naturalization act (1890) specifically says children born of US citizens abroad were “natural born citizens”. Although this law was only in effect for a few years, it demonstrates that the founders understood the scope of this term to be something other than you are claiming. There is no record of any founder saying this was unconstitutional.
Resultantly, most legal scholars and judges in particular regard a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen or “native” as Vattel called them even when the condition for their citizenship IS conferred based on specific legislation. In fact, the requirements for citizenship at birth have always been defined by Congress. Only in the first instance is it specifically referred to as “natural born” citizenship.
The naturalization act of 1952 conferred citizenship on Cruz at birth. This is because his mother was a US citizen at the time of birth and had met the minimum residency requirements.
Or it could be in response to the drop in birther posts. I would much rather be talking issues and not wading thru that crap.
But anyway, what’s your problem with Trump sucks articles? I thought the brash in your face attacks is what gave Trump his appeal - tapping into the anger out there and all that. It is only OK when Trump and crew direct it at others?
I think you are the one who wants to bring FR down for not banning all the “Trumpsters”. : )
You are correct.
You're comment is quite appreciated. The *we* pronoun was directed towards the writer of the article. I was probably remiss in not using the singular pronoun *I* to make sure my thought was clear.
---
Although this law was only in effect for a few years, it demonstrates that the founders understood the scope of this term to be something other than you are claiming.
Compare the language of the two acts (1790 - shall be considered as natural born) (1795 - shall be considered as citizens of the United States) with the language of the Constitutional clause itself - No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.
A logical conclusion would be that these two acts were passed in order to create a time frame to denote the Constitutional 'adoption' window.
This contention is supported by one of the cases most cited concerning citizenship - Wong Kim Ark. While the discussion concerned birth in this country, it also mentioned outside the country -
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,.. Wong Kim Ark
---
In fact, the requirements for citizenship at birth have always been defined by Congress.
True - citizenship, not natural born citizen. The ONLY authority granted to the federal government concerning citizenship that of naturalization.
---
The naturalization act of 1952 conferred citizenship on Cruz at birth.
That's right. It says he's a citizen made such by an act of naturalization...which means he was deemed to be a naturalized citizen at birth.
It does not say he is natural born.
“If these arguments are in fact true, wouldn’t the campaigning for Ted Cruz constitute an assistance to the Liberal efforts to subvert the Constitution and the rule of law supporting conservative values?”
I agree, but that is a very big IF.
Whether Cruz would qualify as a natural born citizen in 1789, 1802, 1855, or 1950 is not relevant. What is relevant is whether he qualifies now.
I think if this issue makes it to the Supreme Court they will rule that natural born citizen = native = citizen at birth. I think all people who are born citizens are so by statute. If they are not, then why were blacks and American Indians not “natural born citizens”?
The only possible answer is that citizenship, including natural born citizenship, is always based on laws.
This is not a math equation where the opinions of Congress and the Courts have no authority. Even if you were technically right about the intent of the term in the Constitution, which I do not believe you are, you are wasting your breath. Congress and the Supreme Court are never going to bar anyone from the presidency on the criteria you are giving. If someone was born a citizen of the US, they are going to be considered eligible for president in the eyes of the Courts and eyes of the law.
If you could somehow restore the rule of law and adherence to natural law in this nation, it would mean criminal charges against many for treason as well as crimes against humanity.
It would mean undoing everything Obama has done, including court appointments. None of this will happen short of Civil War 2 or Revolution 2. And either of those may well become World War 3. But this may be inevitable anyway.
Save your arguments for drafting a new Constitution for a new nation that arises from the ash heaps of this one. Start formulating your arguments for why a person should not hold such an office as a matter of principle rather than a technicality which is and will be lost on the citizens of such a nation in the future.
Debating this now is debating the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. We need to be thinking about how to save as many people as possible with the few remaining life boats available.
Yeah go figure. Lately, it sure doesn't feel very welcome here, for Cruz supporters.
And it seems to me this election is turning into "same old same old".
2008-Choice is between Democrat vs. Moderate GOPe candidate with hisory of supporting dem issues, who claims to have recently "changed" and is now conservative-Brings in Sarah Palin for conservative cred.
Democrats win and either way their agenda would be advanced .
2012 -Choice is once again between Democrat and a dem-light/GOPe with a history of supporting dem issues, who claims to have recently "changed",and is now conservative.
Dems win, but either way, dem agenda would be advanced.
2016-If Trump wins- It looks like once again, the choice will be between a GOP/e?/moderate, who has history of supporting dem issues, who claims to have recently "changed", and is now conservative and a democrat. He brings in Sarah Palin for consevative cred.....
Except, what's sad, is that we have a true Constitutional conservative with a proven record, that we could choose instead.
Sorry but I'm just not buying that Cruz is secretly working with Goldman/Sachs in a sinister plot to have Canada take us over.
I will vote for Trump if he's the nominee.
I just don't buy that he's conservative- he's more like a blue-dog democrat, not conservative per se, but loves our country, and is sincere in wanting to make it great.
He accepted the demand to promise not to run third party. Conservatives should not be offering their loyalty without demanding something in return. As a shrewd negotiator he may not even respect us after he is elected if we do not make these demands now.
Palin and others who want to throw their support behind Trump need to leverage that for more than just a possible appointment or chance for the VP slot. Ask him to commit to defund Planned Parenthood. Is there any reason he should not commit to this? Is there any true conservative who would not do this whether for fiscal or social conservative principles?
If all Trump does in office is help improve our economy, this country will slide further into a moral abyss from which there is no return. The longer these issues remain unresolved, the more painful the battle will be to get them resolved.
“Was Cruz standing up for We The People when he voted for the Corker Bill?”
Ted’s reply from www.therightscoop.com :
“I voted no on cloture because we should have insisted on amendments to put real teeth in this bill. Ultimately, I voted yes on final passage because it may delay, slightly, President Obama’s ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a Congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal. I will continue to lead the fight to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to protect the national security of America and our allies.”
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-why-i-voted-yes-for-corker-iran-bill/#ixzz3yEEMukn8
I’m quite aware of what his flimsy excuse is.
Does that response sound like a good reason to flip the Senate Treaty Power Clause upside down with an unconstitutional and illegal law?
Does that sound like the reasoning of someone who values our Constitution?
Or does it sound like Bovine Scatology?
“It says he’s a citizen made such by an act of naturalization...which means he was deemed to be a naturalized citizen at birth.”
That argument does not hold water. The first act of naturalization did recognize certain citizens born abroad as “natural born”. Just because it is a naturalization act does not mean declaring certain criteria for citizenship at birth is naturalization any more than the Affordable Healthcare Act makes healthcare affordable.
“The ONLY authority granted to the federal government concerning citizenship that of naturalization.”
Really? Where does Congress get the authority to regulate and enforce immigration?
The legislative branch by its very existence has the power to regulate certain things. Citizenship, like immigration, is part of what Vattel and our Constitution calls the “law of nations.”
The concept of “natural born citizen” did not exist throughout history. It is not the same as discovering the elements of the periodic table. It is a legal construct, even though it is based on the principles of natural law. And even if it were something that exists in nature without regard to any legal framework, it is still necessary for a legal framework to exist in order for it to have any meaning or utility.
Therefore, without a strict legal definition being included in the Constitution, and seeing as the founders specified in the first naturalization act certain criteria for recognizing “natural born citizens”, I am convinced it was always intended by the majority of the founders that such criteria would be in the purview of the legislature just as it was understood that immigration is, even though it is not an enumerated power.
But we aren't talking about the repealed act of 1790, but the one that made Cruz a citizen.
---
Where does Congress get the authority to regulate and enforce immigration?
They assumed it, it was never granted to them.
-----
I am convinced it was always intended by the majority of the founders that such criteria would be in the purview of the legislature just as it was understood that immigration is, even though it is not an enumerated power.
Then you grant them the power to do whatever they will. The Founders enumerated the federal power for a reason, and we ignore that at our peril.
From the first legal treatise written after Constitutional ratification -
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject.
This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
The site is no longer conservative.
A majority of the users here have hooked themselves to the poplulist/nativist morphine drip. And they are feeling no pain.
Like "Gay" marriage?
:)
Ding! Ding! Ding!
;-)
“But we aren’t talking about the repealed act of 1790, but the one that made Cruz a citizen.”
Both are relevant to the discussion. The act of 1790 proves the founders did see the requirements to be a natural born citizen to be within the purview of Congress. It was passed into law by the same men who ratified the Constitution 18 months prior. And that fact demolishes your legal theory.
The one in 1952 makes Cruz a citizen at birth which is what most legal experts and those who would decide such a case consider to be a natural born citizen.
“From the first legal treatise written after Constitutional ratification...”
In the United States has never had denizens or subjects. The concept of natural born citizen comes from the philosophy of Vattel, particularly, his “The Law of Nations”.
“They assumed it [the authority to regulate and enforce immigration], it was never granted to them.”
So do you advocate that Congress repeal all laws regarding immigration? Do you believe there are no illegal immigrants in this country since laws regulating this are, in your view, unconstitutional?
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.