Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iran nuke deal and Ted Cruz eligibility have something in common
Legal Insurrection ^ | 03.27.2015

Posted on 03/28/2015 6:06:35 AM PDT by Perdogg

On March 27, 2015, I appeared in studio on Washington’s Drive at Five hosted by Larry O’Connor on WMAL 630 in D.C.

We touched on two completely unrelated, but interesting, subjects: Obama’s plan to make an end run around Congress to the U.N. Security Council to sign a nuke deal with Iran, and claims that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President because he was born in Canada.

For background on why Cruz is eligible, you can read my September 3, 2013 post, natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz. But it’s 11,102 words, so it might be easier for you to listen to this audio.

(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: iraniannukes; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

1 posted on 03/28/2015 6:06:35 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Like Pelosi did, all that need happen to clear the Federal hurdle for nomination is that Boehner certify he is eligible.


2 posted on 03/28/2015 6:08:26 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Yep, they’re both as bogus as “Bracket” Hussein Obama’s BC!


3 posted on 03/28/2015 6:10:40 AM PDT by houeto (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

After Precedent Obama, it’s a moot point.


4 posted on 03/28/2015 6:57:08 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

No its not a moot point.

Whenever the gubmit and dems quit blocking the ability to access info on nobama, we may find he was a lie and his being POTUS was a violation of the Constitution, but that does not mean the Constitution is now moot.


5 posted on 03/28/2015 7:08:25 AM PDT by X-spurt (CRUZ missile - armed and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

All of our political and judicial institutions went along. Not just Democrats.
Both parties wanted to run ineligible candidates.


6 posted on 03/28/2015 7:14:31 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Still, the Constitution is not moot due to violation. It is not moot until WE say its moot.


7 posted on 03/28/2015 7:45:06 AM PDT by X-spurt (CRUZ missile - armed and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Furthermore, McLame was not ineligible. He was not a good choice, but in a long tradition, it was HIS TURN.


8 posted on 03/28/2015 7:48:32 AM PDT by X-spurt (CRUZ missile - armed and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

9 posted on 03/28/2015 7:50:31 AM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

No offense, but William Jacobson is more credible than internet jailhouse lawyers.


10 posted on 03/28/2015 8:07:42 AM PDT by Perdogg (I'm on a no Carb diet- NO Christie Ayotte Romney or Bush - stay outta da Bushesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
My sources are posted directly above for all to see. They include our founding documents, the original intent of our Founding Fathers, as well as all relevant US Supreme Court cases.

No offense, but Jacobson is an establishment elitist country club puke and is in on the fix.

11 posted on 03/28/2015 8:19:08 AM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Did you read his article?


12 posted on 03/28/2015 8:21:32 AM PDT by Perdogg (I'm on a no Carb diet- NO Christie Ayotte Romney or Bush - stay outta da Bushesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Yes. Argumentum verbosium by a lawyer of the John Roberts Wing of the so-called conservative movement. Always sad to see the Constitution used as toilet paper.


13 posted on 03/28/2015 8:29:19 AM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

Your post is a bit confusing to me. 1) You’re for Cruz, but 2) claim McLame was not eligible, and 3) not a good choice.

How is being a good choice in any way connected with eligibility?

How is it that (in your opinion) McLame was not eligible but Cruz is?

Could you lay out your logic to achieve these opinions? This isn’t to dispute your assertions, per se, but to try to figure out how you conclude what seems to me to be contradictory or not-related.


14 posted on 03/28/2015 8:32:34 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

It is amazing, isn’t it?


15 posted on 03/28/2015 8:35:59 AM PDT by Perdogg (I'm on a no Carb diet- NO Christie Ayotte Romney or Bush - stay outta da Bushesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

So you are saying Cruz is not eligible?


16 posted on 03/28/2015 8:37:19 AM PDT by Theoria (I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

It is almost funny the corner they box themselves in.


17 posted on 03/28/2015 8:39:03 AM PDT by Perdogg (I'm on a no Carb diet- NO Christie Ayotte Romney or Bush - stay outta da Bushesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Perhaps you could explain just why his position is credible. I listened to him in the interview and heard him explain that his reason for believing as he did was that he had “researched” the matter extensively. I don’t believe that is a reason that could be used in a court.


18 posted on 03/28/2015 8:43:01 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Perhaps you could explain just why his position is credible. I listened to him in the interview and heard him explain that his reason for believing as he did was that he had “researched” the matter extensively. I don’t believe that is a reason that could be used in a court.


19 posted on 03/28/2015 8:43:17 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Isn’t that a rhetorical question?


20 posted on 03/28/2015 8:43:28 AM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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