Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.
Snip~
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”
Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“IOW, he is a liar.”
On this, we agree.
Excellent points but water off a duck’s back. You are talking to a fundamentally dishonest person who is not trying to get at the truth. He is trying to justify Obama. We’ve seen his type before. As has been pointed out above, They Lie.
Enough said.
Forgot to courtesy ping you to 839. Since I mentioned your name, I should have added you to the heading. Sorry. :(
I understand where you are coming from.
There is no need for you to take my word for it. If you can find any example in all of American history, from 1788 to 2013 where a person born in the United States who was not an alien with diplomatic immunity, a slave or a post Dred Scott decision Person of African descent, a reservation-based American Indian before 1924 and the Indian Citizenship Act or a member of a foreign occupying military was denied “Citizen of the United States at Birth” status, then please be so kind as to post the details here.
“Alien” is a status (as in “Permanent Resident Alien,” a person with a Green Card) and “National” is also a status ( as in Citizen of the United States at Birth). There are just a few people who might be “nationals” but are not US citizens: persons born in American Samoa, Swain’s Island or the Northern Marianas (Saipan).”
Aliens in America interact with American nationality by choosing or not choosing to leave one’s indigenous nationality behind and by naturalization, adopting a new nationality.
Yes, English is indeed my first language! ;-)
There are only two classifications of citizenship: aliens can become naturalized citizens and they are ineligible for the presidency and Citizens of the United States at birth or “natural born citizens” can become president.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 129 years ago: Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’” Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
And somebody should tell Steve Jenkins, the author of “Dogs and Cats” just how ridiculous he is! ;-):
http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-Cats-Steve-Jenkins/dp/0618507671
Wikipedia has a pretty thorough and well referenced article on American Nationality Law which covers all the alien and national contingencies and permutations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law
Did you even read about the book? It’s two books in one; one about dogs & one about cats. What a waste of time it is, even talking w you. You can’t seem to make a good point for trying—or are you not trying? Are you just trying to burn up people’s time & patience?
Look, I have seen just how dishonest you are. It’s been pointed out by others. I have nothing more to say to you. Just be aware that you have been exposed. You’re not trying to get at the truth but rather to obscure it. You are working for Obama, and it shows.
It’s up to US District Court Judge Henry Wingate to assess the probative value (or lack thereof) of the Onaka Letter of Verification. He has not let us know his ruling yet even though the letter is dated May 31, 2012.
While I appreciate other folks’ opinions on the letter’s worthlessness, I’ll wait for the judge to rule.
Dr. Onaka is a named defendant in Mississippi so if Judge Wingate rules that a trial should go forward, Dr. Onaka may be deposed or called to testify under oath.
I think you might be forgetting that Title 8 of the US Code has separate chapters and sub-chapters dealing with aliens and separate chapters and sub-chapters delineating who are US nationals including who are “Citizens of the United States at Birth.”
Thanks for giving me a second chance to underscore the dishonesty of your previous post. You purported to provide a link to A book about Dogs AND Cats. I guess you hoped I wouldn’t even take a passing glance at it. What it was, was 2 separate bks, one about dogs & one about cats.
See the point? You are too dishonest even to have a reasonable discussion w. Your MO is to obscure any discuss you address. Face it; you’ve been exposed.
The document is legally worthless. That is a fact.
Wingate can only side with the fact or side with the lie, and there are lots of ways to get him to side with the lie, like all the other judges.
The truth doesn’t move. Only people move. Those who argue that the truth is determined by where any one person or “the people” stand are clueless.
The fact is that two documents put out by the HDOH are blatant forgeries (Ah Nee’s BC has a forged Onaka signature and 2 BC# digits that overlap, and Sunahara’s death certificate has mismatched, misaligned fonts, a federal birth code on a death certificate, and a Territory of Hawaii abbreviation on a State of Hawaii certificate). When asked directly, Onaka confirmed in the verification to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that the document the White House has put on its website is a “true and accurate representation of the record on file”, Onaka effectively confirmed that it wasn’t. When asked directly by KS SOS Kris Kobach to confirm that the information contained in the White House image is “identical to” the information contained in the record on file, Onaka effectively confirmed that it isn’t. When asked to specifically verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama, Onaka effectively confirmed that none of those things can be verified as true.
The only reason the MDEC verification doesn’t reveal the non-validity of the actual HI record, Onaka’s inability to verify any actual birth facts, or the non-genuineness of the White House record.... is because Scott Tepper was very, very careful not to ask about any of those things - even though he said those were the critical issues.
The judge would be a fool to ignore the truth. Just like all the other judges before him, though this time the evidence is more than the other judges ever had.
“Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated” Justice Scalia Arizona v. US, Supreme Court 2012
Seminal: Highly influential in an original way; constituting or providing a basis for further development.
The Constitution? The United States? The Declaration of Independence?
As you wish.
Conflicts of law are created by:
These claims create international conflicts of law.
International conflicts of law may be settled by a commission.
In accord with Art. XXI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to settle differences "by the arbitration of commissioners appointed on each side"[1], the United States and Mexican Claims Commission was established July 4, 1868.
Members of the Commission hearing the cases cited below were:
The commissioner for the United States was William Henry Wadsworth, with counsel Joseph Ashton, former Assistant Attorney-General of the United States.
The commissioner for Mexico was Francisco Palacio, also with counsel.
The umpire was Sir Edward Thornton, British minister to the United States. [2]
"The umpire is of the opinion that it is not proved that the claimant was a citizen of the United States. The ground that he is so, is his own statement that he was born at New York, together with a certificate of baptism of a child who was born at New York, Beniguo being one of the names which were given to him; but it is not proved that the child then born and baptised was one and the same person with the claimant. Nor would the mere fact of his having been born at New York be sufficient evidence of citizenship. It is clear that his parents were both aliens at the time of his birth, and it is not shown that they were naturalized or that they or the child remained in the United States. The inference is to the contrary, and the umpire believes that the child in question, even if that child was really the claimant, though born in the United States, was subject to a foreign power and cannot without further proof be considered to be a citizen of the United States" (emphasis added) [3]
"Claimant was born in Texas of French parents, and at the age of 19 years removed to Matamoras, Mexico, with his mother, a widow, where they established a commercial house.
The commissioners, Mr. Palacio delivering the opinion, held that, as it did not appear that the parents of the claimant were naturalized during their residence in Texas, it was to be presumed that they retained their original French nationality; that the claimant, who left the United States before arriving at the age of 21 years, was entitled, according the the French code, to retain the nationality transmitted by his parents; that the laws of Mexico did not forbid such election; but that he was not entitled to renounce his French nationality and elect that of the United States, after he had abandoned that latter country to establish himself in another, and after he had made a valid act of adoption of French nationality." (excerpted, emphasis added) [4]
Had the claimant remained in the United States he would have retained the right of election - his right to renounce his French nationality or elect that of the United States.
"It is also alleged that the claimant is by birth a citizen of the United States, having been born out of wedlock in Cuba, in 1847, of an American mother. I am of the opinion that under that laws of the United States an illegitimate child born abroad of an American woman is not a citizen of the United States." [5]
"The claimant was brought to the United States while a minor by his father from Germany. He claimed citizenship though the naturalization of his father, but did not prove the naturalization.
The umpire, observing that there was no proof of the naturalization of the father, said: 'The fact that he (the father) voted or even held office in the State of Illinois is no proof that he was a citizen of the United States. And if he was not, neither was his son, who does not pretend to have been naturalized." (excerpted, emphasis added) [6]
Note well judge Carroll (Voeltz v. Obama): contrary to your "miracle", holding office is not proof of citizenship.
These cases illustrate:
[1] Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with The Republic of Mexico, 9 Stat. 922, 939 (1848) available at memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html
[2] John Bassett Moore, 2 History And Digest Of The International Arbitrations To Which The United States Has Been A Party, 1287 (1898) available at books.google.com
[3] Id. at 2449
[4] Id. at 2450
[5] Id. at 2462
[6] Id. at 2547
“The basic premise of diplomatic protection can be traced to Vattel.” Dr. Kate Parlett
I’ve said many times that Vattel was influential.
In the area in which he was influential. International relations and international law.
But there doesn’t seem to be any indication that he had the SLIGHTEST influence whatsoever on our ideas of citizenship.
It’s kind of like arguing that since Albert Einstein was a great physicist, we got our ideas of evolution from him.
Two entirely different areas.
We do not need a “SCOTUS” ruling since, among normal, reasonable, rational people ——
There is no dispute!
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth.
we are endlessly "on hold" waiting for those with the authority to address this problem, throw up one delay after another, some of course quite valid, others sheer judicial obtuseness, incompetence, or far worse.
However bitter this Obama pill is to swallow, the courts' opinions count for far more than ours. But all is far from lost. Am I mistaken in sensing that The Cold Case Posse has ... if not acknowledged ... gotten an encouraging nod from those whose voices may count more than ours?
Thanks for that excellent research, Ray. It’s refreshing yet a little sad to look back to a time when people thought & reasoned w such relative ease. Modern liberalism has effectively killed both skills/abilities. Those who so aggressively, relentlessly & tyrannically pushed this braindead ideology onto Western Civilization have a lot to answer for.
The fact remains that it took me about 15 seconds to find a book named “Dogs and Cats” and you still think that there is some sort of impenetrable wall that separates “Aliens and Nationality.” There is no such wall.
American nationality law covers who is an alien and who is a national and how aliens can become nationals via naturalization.
It’s like trying to reason w a boiled potato. Or maybe a twice-baked potato. Pls go back & read my post #839. Genuinely try to understand it this time. I’m not saying this facetiously. If it makes more sense the second go round, post to me again & perhaps we’ll talk.
Look, I’m sorry about the potato comments, okay. I’m changing them as best I can, since there is no ‘edit’ function.
‘It’s like trying to reason w a person who could probably reason if they tried but who gives no appearance of trying.’
Hey, no problem. I realize how heated things can get in the heat of verbal cyber-debate. I take no offense and I admire your passion for the positions that you believe in.
I ignore insults and ad hominems and stick to the issues under discussion.
Sometimes on these Internet blogs people get to fighting like cats and dogs.
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.