Posted on 01/25/2016 7:13:33 PM PST by Citizen Zed
The plaintiff, Walter L. Wagner, asserts that Cruz is not natural born as defined by the Constitution because only one of Cruz's parents (his mother) was a U.S. citizen at his time of birth in Canada and because, he alleges, their intention at Cruz's birth was "to have residency or citizenship in a foreign (non-U.S.A.) country."
...
In 2008, Wagner filed suit in federal court against the U.S. Department of Energy and European Center for Nuclear Energy Research (CERN), alleging that the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator might create a black hole that could destroy Earth -- and that the governmental entities were covering up this risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
Kenya has the same problem Hawaii has. I.e.: that if Stanley Ann had spent ~seven mos there, getting more and more pregnant, people would have seen her. A few people at least, would have turned up to relate recollections of where she lived, what she did, etc. People remember her from every other period of her life—including from her pre-pregnancy days. But not one solitary soul remembers her from that time frame in HI, and Kenya is little better. There are one or two sketchy accounts, but nothing that can be pinned down and verified.
The best explanation for Stanley Ann’s disappearance is that she was out of sight at a home for unwed mother’s. Specifically, just across the border from Seattle, in Canada. This explains why no biographer can find hide or hair of her during this telltale period. It also explains her sudden, out of the blue appearance in Seattle. Fresh out of her ‘confinement’, she was ready to resume her life.
When Cruz was running for US Senator for TX, he talked up his support for a wall. Funny, after he got to DC, no further mention of it. No mention, that is, until Trump made it the centerpiece of his entry into the race.
Nevada can trust Cruz to get their land back—and they certainly deserve it. Based on his track record, the follow through is far from guaranteed.
Please directly quote the language from Rogers v. Bellei that says Bellei had natural born citizenship, and explain how that passage overrides:
I thought you had given up playing lawyer on this topic.
The language you quote is just self serving dictum from the dissent in Bellei. Its irrelevant.
Your entire argument is founded on the premise that a person who is a naturalized citizen cannot also be "natural born" for purposes of Article II, Sec. 1. There is nothing I can see in Bellei or any where else of which I am aware that makes that the law--it is just argument on your part. The Supreme Court might come down that way; it might not.
The argument to the contrary is simple--a person who is a US citizen at birth as a consequence of his birth; is literally a "natural born" citizen wherever the birth occurs. Fact that he gets the citizenship under the statute and the naturalization power is not relevant to the discussion.
Bellei simply lost his citizenship under a condition which was attached to it; Cruz didn't.
If tasked to do so, I would further argue that the result is not far off the result the founders intended.
Mr. Jay was concerned about exercise of sovereignty of the head of state of the place of birth over a person who subsequently became a US Citizen. The level of that concern was founded on generally understood then principles of International Law which would not have the same impact in modern times.
That argument is particularly telling under factual conditions presented here by Cruz because there was no period of time between his birth and the time at which he became a citizen.
Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "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."That is from a concurring opinion in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
-- Your entire argument is founded on the premise that a person who is a naturalized citizen cannot also be "natural born" --
That is correct. A citizen is such either under the constitution, without resort to an Act of Congress, or they are naturalized.
Again, the case law is uniform on this. I do understand that you find your point of view supior to SCOTUS. But you are a kook.
I don’t think we will believe him when he says that. Our representatives and senators have been saying it for years to get elected. Old story, always forgotten the minute they fly over the Nevada border headed east.
We’ll probably believe Trump who says no, not at this time, we need to protect the lands, the hunters, the people who use the land.
One week missing of records from incoming flights overseas, hmmm???
More name calling. That is what Liberals do when they can't find substantive arguments with which to respond.
To the contrary, I have never advocated my views as either conclusive or dispositive of a Supreme Court challenge.
The bottom line is that there is no basis on which anyone can predict the Court's outcome on the issue with any degree of certainty.
The most accurate forecasters of Supreme Court outcomes are the Main Line East Coast media and the Washington DC Constitutional Law bar.
So when you have the New York Times telling you it is time to eliminate the Natural Born requirement; and the Constitutional Law bar lined up on the proposition that a more modern sense of the rule is Citizenship at Birth, you can reasonably surmise that is the probable outcome, depending on the circumstances in which the Court gets the case.
If the case gets there under circumstances in which Cruz has won a landslide victory in the election, it is fairly certain the Court will uphold the election result if they even hear the case.
Yo’re the one who started the name calling. Now leave me alone.
I don't think so.
Matter of fact one of the knocks on Trump has been his remarkable facility to get over the arguments he made last week in favor of his position on last weeks issue when his objective changed the following Monday.
I’m hoping Trump will change his mind on this issue. He doesn’t mind admitting when he’s wrong. What’s more, if someone can persuade Trump that the state needs to control that land, he would actually do something about it. What a change that would be!
You may be right.
I personally think he will once he learns the ins and outs of it and figures out a way to protect it from things like Harry Reid selling off to China.
That’s a very good point. Hillary had promised some of that land to a donor as well, hadn’t she? Yes, first it does need to be protexywd. But I still feel more confident in Trump to do the right thing in the long run than I do in ANY career politician. I’m all out of faith in the Permanent Political Class. They’ve sold us out once too often.
Once he is up to speed on the incredible amount of natural resources under the ground, gold, silver, copper, rare earth minerals, etc. I think he’ll look for ways for the state to open up some of it with some kind of protect against foreign investment and purchase. We could become so independent of so many things if that were possible.
Agree!
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.â€Sneaky....The Kenyan constitution does state that if you do not denounce your other citizenship and swear an oath to Kenya then you citizenship does in fact expire. But they give you a two year grace period so the date Aug 4, 1982 should read Aug 4, 1984.
(a)under [F105the British Nationality Acts 1981 and 1983][F106or the British Overseas Territories Act 2002] is a British citizen, a [F107British overseas territories citizen] , [F108a British National (Overseas),] a British Overseas citizen or a British subject; or (b)under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in Schedule 3 is a citizen of that country, shall have the status of a Commonwealth citizen.The UK was terminating the title of "subject" and replacing it with "Commonwealth Citizen" in this act. So the date above is relevant because the commencement date of the BNA 1981 was Jan 1, 1983 while Obama was still considered a Kenyan Citizen thus being a British Subject then became a "Commonwealth Citizen" of the UK. We have a Brit in the WH!
“No doubt Cruz was a US Citizen at birth”
And, no doubt he was a Canadian citizen at birth. A Natural Born Citizen does not have a citizenship choice.
Thanks for posting that. The wholesale refusal to vet Obama was a betrayal of the country. We’ll be paying the price for a very long time.
Well, if you had been paying attention, you’d know two of the people you threw this poo at are among those who have ardently pursued Barry’s credentials, and have been severely derided, even here, for doing so. Maybe you were reading the Kardashian threads.
But if we can have a ruling for Cruz that declares the true meaning of NBC then people will realize Obama is not an NBC.
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.