Posted on 02/25/2020 10:14:36 AM PST by ransomnote
Ah did a quick looksee and you must mean at CPAC2020.
Thanks. I don’t think I have a lot to add. The last article I posted—the pdf—was rather extensive.
My understanding still is that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can define the criteria & definitions of what Natural Born means.
Ted I think IMPO would make a great Supreme Court Justice, I have heard him speak and he has tried one or two cases in from of the Supreme Court...I do believe he is wasting his time as Senator and hope someday he makes it to the Highest Court in the land...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No on SCOTUS. He wasn’t a NBC and he knew it, and still ran for President. He was a dual citizen for his whole life and pretended he didn’t know, finally renounced the Canadian citizenship during while running.
It needs to go to SCOTUS. I don’t know about that ruling, but will ask someone on FR who will know.
ALWAYS INTERESTING.. (2014)
“The Spirit of God says, one more thing I want to talk to you about, that little dwarf in North Korea. I’m getting a little tired of him. I think I’m going to go and pay him a visit, says the Lord. You watch and see what I do and that will be a big sign that the man that I’m sending with the stone for the giant is emerging, says the Lord.”
Well, if imitation's is the best form of flattery.... Or an attempt to add hubris to one's post.
there are 8400 people under observation in CA
“Watch CA” ?
“Watch the Water” ??
wonder where that cluster of CA patients is - anywhere near the feces rivers near SF and LA?
Six ways indeed Wise Niteowl!!
The rule of lenity is a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner most favorable to the defendant. (From Wikipedia)
Perhaps there is a Constitutional Law version of this but my theory has always been that any ambiguity should be interpreted in the broadest/narrowest interpretation possible so long as it benefits/protects its citizens with the most Liberty. In general, the Constitution was written to limit government and it mostly outlines what the government can and can't do. For some aspects of the writing, like the second amendment, the reasons it states “shall not be infringed” is directed as a warning to not interfere and is why it doesn't go deeper into reasons as to why. It's clearly restricted — yet, ambiguity around it still exists.
In the case of Natural Born Citizen, I think it should be the narrowest interpretation (the stricter the better) because it protects Liberty of the citizenry from divided allegiances in a candidate who might not hold their best interests when carrying out the duties as their President (as we just witnessed the consequences of with the Kenyesian Usurper [FU NP]).
However, in the case of the 2nd amendment with Shall Not Be Infringed, then I believe the broadest interpretation should apply as that provides the most Liberty to the citizens that exercise it daily in defense of their lives, their family's lives, their livelihood, and our nation's livelihood.
Probably won't go anywhere, even being able to finally give it a name, but thought it might be of interest and perhaps useful in some way.
Also have a theory about the Left’s pattern of behavior as being a blatant attempt to establish a state sanctioned religion. Again, probably not going anywhere, but think the pattern aspect is significant.
I'll return to my hole, now.
Marcus
Congressional Research Service:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Most of it gets tediously & extensively about the soil part from the founding on.
{added paragraphing & emphases}
QUOTE:
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Congressional Research Service 25
Citizenship at Birth: Case Law and Interpretations
The overwhelming evidence of historical intent, general understandings, and common law principles underlying American jurisprudence thus indicate that the most reasonable interpretation of “natural born” citizens would include those who are considered U.S. citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” either by the operation of the strict “common law” of jus soli derived from English common law (physically born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, without reference to parentage or lineage), or under existing federal statutory law incorporating long-standing concepts of jus sanguinis, the law of descent, including those born abroad of U.S. citizen-parents.
This general historical understanding and interpretation is supported, as well, by specific federal case law in the United States, and in official legal opinions of U.S. officers.
Although the Supreme Court has not needed to rule specifically on the presidential eligibility clause, as discussed in more detail below, numerous federal cases, as well as state cases, for more than a century have used the term “natural born citizen” to describe a person born in this country and under its jurisdiction, even to parents who were aliens in the U.S.114
Additionally, several Supreme Court cases, as well as numerous constitutional scholars, have used the term “native born” citizen to indicate all of those children physically born in the country (and subject to its jurisdiction), without reference to parentage or lineage, and employed such term in reference to those citizens eligible to be President under the “natural born” citizenship clause, as opposed to “naturalized” citizens, who are not.115
In no currently controlling legal opinion in American jurisprudence has the citizenship or nationality of one’s parents or forebears been considered a determining factor in the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President, and no holding in any case in federal court has ever established a “two citizen-parent” requirement, or other requirement of lineage or bloodline, for a native born U.S. citizen to be eligible for the Presidency.
-------------------------------
(...continued) legal lexicon as defined as: “A citizen by birth, as distinguished from a citizen who has been naturalized.” BALLENTINE’S LAW DICTIONARY, at 831 (“natural-born citizen”) (3rd ed. 1969), and as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government,” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, at 278 (“natural-born citizen”) (9th ed. 2009), as well as the common dictionary meanings of “natural-born,” as “having a specified status or character by birth” (note specific reference to presidential eligibility), WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,UNABRIDGED, at p. 1507 (1976). It may also be noted that the English word “natural,” according to the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, is rooted in the “Middle English (in the sense ‘having a certain status by birth’) ....” Emphasis added.
END QUOTE
{See also page 29}
p 30:
QUOTE
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement Congressional Research Service 30 The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark cited with approval to an earlier decision of a federal circuit court, written by Supreme Court Justice Swayne sitting on circuit, explaining that
END QUOTE
QUOTE
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as in England.... We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject to the same exceptions, since before the Revolution.13
END QUOTE
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The interpretation that one who obtains “citizenship by birth” is a “natural born” citizen eligible to be President, as distinguished from one who derives “citizenship by naturalization” and who is not so eligible, was discussed by the Supreme Court as early as 1884:
END QUOTE
p 31:
QUOTE
and “the Congress shall have the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, art. 2, sect. 1; art. 1, sect. 8.136
END QUOTE
p 36:
QUOTE
t is significant to note that in a more recent case, in 2001, the Supreme Court indicated that under current law and jurisprudence a child born to U.S. citizens while living or traveling abroad, and a child born in the geographic United States, had the same legal status.
END QUOTE
p. 37
QUOTE
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent case that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the residency requirement
END QUOTE
p38:
QUOTE
At the time of Senator’s McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that “[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687 (1898) ....] Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks. 170
END QUOTE
I don't think those four words are contained in any copy of the Constitution used by any federal court judges or justices. None have ever acknowledged them.
AWK News 2.28.20: [DS] CEOs are falling. Strange things happening around
Please let me know if you want on or off this ping list.
*
This thread is now retired. Thank you to all who posted and lurked. Click on the image to join us on the new thread.
thx looking forward to update
First, the Constitution as original conceptualized by the founders didn't limit the number of terms of a president, the 22nd Amendment did.
Second, that amendment can be repealed by the will of the people. Just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933.
That was the limit of my comments, period.
You’ve been posting such winners about winning!
I do remember something about an alternate energy source. I somehow remember that I got the impression it would be kept for 2nd term.
“This order finds it highly PROBABLE (?!?!?), for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.”
Their use of “probable” is in effect bending the interpretation to allow something that is still ambiguous and not definitive. That it had to be asked and that there is still some question (however remote it may be) should still have disqualified McCain over a candidate who’s NBC status is absolute.
This SCOTUS decision has been gone over with a microscope by legal minds. The Wong Ark decision was not actually in connected with qualifications for President ie NBC status. Keep in mind this interpretation/document is from 2011, so naturally under the authority of Steaming Pile - oops, 0bola, they’re not going to “find” that he was not a 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.
