Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Nero Germanicus
For the record, Rogers v Bellei is now moot and wouldn’t be used as precedent.
From Wikipedia: “The statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.”

Because Congress changed the requirements for the naturalized at birth citizen, (Aldo Mario Bellei) they changed the requirements for "natural born citizen"? I thought you have previously said congress doesn't have the power to unilaterally redefine that term?

You should make up your mind.

If Senator Cruz decides to run, I am certain there will be lawsuits challenging his eligibility like there were for Obama and McCain. The courts will decide the issue.

They may decide the "legal" issue, but they certainly cannot force voters into going along with whatever they say. If sufficient court challenges cause people to lose faith in his eligibility, he may win the court battle but lose the election.

Since Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, the statement quoted by Ray76 had no bearing on the holding in that appeal and it is therefore not precedential.

You can either argue that the Wong court knows what it's talking about or you can argue that it doesn't. You cannot assert that it is right about this one thing it says, but wrong about this other thing it says.

So now you can go ahead and do your little legaleeze blarney dance while you try to square that circle.

So which is it, is the Wong court right or wrong? They can't be both.

85 posted on 03/05/2015 5:30:24 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

Rogers v Bellei did not define natural born citizen. The holding in that appeal was that Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on Bellei, who did not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Bellei’s problem was that he did not meet the residence in the U.S. requirement of an 1874 law that applied to his birth circumstances.

I agree with you that the issues of electability and eligibility are completely separate.
In many court decisions it is possible to agree or disagree with the court’s ultimate holding and agree or disagree with the dicta that preceeds the holding.
Time will tell on whether Rogers v Bellei impacts Ted Cruz’s status as a natural born citizen. It obviously had no effect on Barack Obama’s eligibility or electability.


86 posted on 03/05/2015 7:09:36 PM PST by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson