Official Notice of Dispute challenges 4 candidates' NH eligibility (Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, Santorum)

The Post & Email ^ | 11/13/2015 | Robert Laity

[ScottWalkerForPresident2016]

I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a "Natural-Born Citizen" in order to be President under Article II, Sec. 1.

I am disputing the bona-fides of:

Marco Rubio - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S., however his parents were un-naturalized "permanent resident" Cuban citizens when he was born.

Ted Cruz - NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother who may have natualized as a Canadian.

Bobby Jindal - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to parents who were un-naturalized citizens of Indiaa at the time of Bobby Jindal's bitth.

Rick Santorum - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick Santorum's birth.

[DoodleDawg]

What else would that child be?

Read it again. Can you show me where it says that only a child born in the U.S. of two citizen parents is a natural-born citizen. I'm not questioning whether they are, but whether they alone are.

[DoodleDawg]

There is no definition of "Arms" as in the Second Amendment either, but people of the time period who were not idiots, knew what the term meant without an explicit definition.

Ah if only the "no idiots" qualifier was in effect today.

[GregNH]

Then if you're not questioning if they are then show me where it is written that others are.

[DoodleDawg]

Yes. Millions of excluded citizens in the form of Slaves, Indians, and the Children of British Loyalists are insufficient for you to grasp the point.

Indians not taxed is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, slaves were not specifically ruled non-citizens until Dred Scott, and the children of British Loyalists who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted were, in fact, natural-born citizens. Try again.

The word "Dense" comes to mind.

I would have described you as "pig-headed" but "dense" will do.

I could tell you what Chief Justice John Marshall said on the subject, but i'm pretty sure that wouldn't make a dent in your head either.

I could tell you what Justice Bushrod Washington said, I could tell you what Benjamin Franklin said, I could tell you what James Wilson said, I could tell you what James Monroe said, I could show you what James Madison did, and on and on and on and on, and I doubt any of it would make a dent in your preferred belief.

But what you can't do is point to where they accepted your definition of natural-born citizen alone.

[DoodleDawg]

Then if you're not questioning if they are then show me where it is written that others are.

Right here: 8 U.S. Code § 1401

[Eva]

You don’t think that and a crux is prepared for this?

[GregNH]

I’m sorry but I can not find “natural born citizen” at the link you provided.

[DiogenesLamp]

You define "natural" as "not requiring the intervention of man". How does that relate to determining natural-born citizen?

This is why I don't like talking to you. I have to explain things to you that are axiomatic to anyone with intelligence.

Let me make it simple for you. If you have to pass a law to make someone into a citizen, they are not a "natural" citizen. They are an artificial citizen created through the action of a man made law.

No "law" is required to make a natural citizen. They are inherently a citizen in the manner they are inherently human.

It is like the distinction between a blood-related child of a family, and an adopted child of a family; Another analogy which proved to be too complicated for you to grasp.

What is so funny is that you seemingly have no trouble understanding "natural law" when it comes to slavery, but are completely baffled by it when it comes to citizenship.

[DiogenesLamp]

If I were an Elector, I would not learn anything about my constitutional obligations by reading those two pages.

And why would you not? Especially the first page, which is attributed to all the Judges of the Supreme court of Pennsylvania, one of whom was a delegate to the Ratifying convention. (Jasper Yeates)

Again, given that Philadelphia was the center of the Nation and of Law in 1787, why would not the Philadelphia legal community be particularly relevant on the intentions of the term "natural citizen"?

The page clearly states the basis of our law is Vattel's principles of natural law, and not English common law, so you can't fault it for clarity.

All you can do is impugn the knowledge or status of those men whose work was compiled to create it, meaning the Highest Judges in the state of Pennsylvania in 1808, one of which was a constitution ratification delegate.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ah if only the "no idiots" qualifier was in effect today.

Yes, we could forgo the drudgery of having to wade through your irrational posts.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.

Why did Ann Coulter repeat this absurd claim that Ted Cruz isn't eligible ?

Qui Bono ?

1) “Donald Trump was just elected president” ... Ann Coulter, after the Paris attacks ...

2) Yeb Bush ... so irrelevant it doesn’t matter ...

3) Marco Rubio ...

4) Ann Coulter as Presidential Spokeswoman for POTUS Marco Rubio ?

5) Scott Walker gets a cabinet post in Yeb-Rubio's administration ?

.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are really just a jumble of gobbledygook that argues like a child.

But what you can't do is point to where they accepted your definition of natural-born citizen alone.

Oh, but yes I can. That is the point. Were you not ignorant on this subject, you would have known that I very well can point to where they accepted the correct definition which I only learned about a couple of hundred years later, and so therefore is not *MY* definition as you so ignorantly imply.

You keep wanting to make this about me instead of what is the objective truth, and you do this because the objective truth is not on your side.

But like the little child that you are, you can't simply admit you are wrong, or that you don't understand things, you must throw your little temper tantrum and stomp your little feet and shout "no it isn't!!!!!!!!"

Doodle Dawg's reaction depicted below.

No, it is not "My" definition. It is the axiomatic, objective, self evident position of the Natural Law philosophers which inspired the founders to create this nation.

But you seem to think a nation is better governed by whatever naturalization feather congress has up it's @$$ during any given year.

That the Constitutional definition means whatever they say it means when they feel like changing it.

Like I said, you have the understanding of a child.

[Tau Food]

Well, I guess the answer is no, you have not found any primary source of law that an Elector might find to be determinative.

What you have found is a book written by one of the delegates to the convention in Pennsylvania that ratified the Constitution after it was written. And, at page 26 of his book, in a footnote, this delegate states that, in his view, American laws differ in some particulars from English laws and he further states that, in his view, at least some of those American laws are "more consistent with reason and the laws of nature." In support of his opinion, he quotes from a book ("Law of Nations") that was written by Vattel, a dead Swiss philosopher who could not have known anything about the American Constitution or any word of American law. And, in that footnote, the delegate (Yeates) cites no statute or case, no primary source of any kind to support his opinion. It is just his opinion. Basically, what Yeates is saying in that footnote is that he thought some of the theories of Vattel were preferable to at least some of the rules developed in England.

No, you cannot properly put the words of that footnote (even if those words were relevant) into the mouths of the drafters of our Constitution and into the mouths all of the people who participated in the ratification of that Constitution. It is not even clear from that opinion how Yeates might have interpreted the natural born citizen clause, but even if he had clearly stated an opinion, it would remain nothing more than that - the opinion of one man.

I guess you can see now why you are unable to find any primary source of law to support your position. Yeates could not find anything, either.

I think that you should just follow the Constitution. Just vote for candidates who are natural born citizens. That is what I do. And, if he is on my ballot, I will be voting for Ted Cruz, a citizen since the moment he was born.

No more nonsense. Obama cannot run again!

[DiogenesLamp]

What you have found is a book written by one of the delegates to the convention in Pennsylvania that ratified the Constitution after it was written.

If you aren't going to read what I post, I don't really see any point in reading what you post. Dialogue is based on reciprocity.

[Tau Food]

I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I had understood you to be saying that Yeates wrote that book. But, it does not matter who wrote the book. Whoever wrote that book and whoever wrote that footnote, it contained nothing more than a personal opinion that was supported by any primary sources of law. It is just an opinion. It is not a source of Constitutional law.

[Tau Food]

I really think that you ought to be honest with yourself about why you felt such a desperate need to rely upon a footnote like that to support an important argument about how we are required to interpret the natural born citizen clause. That footnote does not cite one case or statute. It is clearly just the opinion of the author. It means nothing more or nothing less than that the author liked Vattel’s book.

[DiogenesLamp]

But, it does not matter who wrote the book. Whoever wrote that book and whoever wrote that footnote, it contained nothing more than a personal opinion that was supported by any primary sources of law.

The book was the work of the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. It was compiled by Samuel Roberts, but it was written with the Supreme Court Judges names prominently as authors of the work contained therein.

Again, the ENTIRE SUPREME COURT of PENNSYLVANIA.

I would say that gives it pretty solid judicial legs. Your response leaves me with the impression that you are dismissing it without actually giving it the consideration which it is due.

Certainly no equivalent law books have been presented which state that the U.S. unequivocally follows English Common law regarding citizens.

In any case, none has ever been presented to me.

This is how that book came to exist.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is clearly just the opinion of the author. It means nothing more or nothing less than that the author liked Vattel’s book.

No, it's based on the compiled work of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Author, Samuel Roberts, received all of his legal training from William Lewis, who was another member of the legislature when the Constitution was ratified by Pennsylvania.

And it is not just Jasper Yeates, or William Lewis, or Samuel Roberts who said these things. It is quite a lot of early officials and lawmakers who said them, among them are also Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, Bushrod Washington, (Nephew of George), James Monroe, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, and so on.

James Wilson specifically cites Vattel during the Convention. James Wilson along with Benjamin Franklin also incorporated the Jus sanguinus right of citizenship into the Original Pennsylvania Constitution.

Here's "B. Franklin's" (who was President of the Pennsylvania constitutional convention) signature right on the document.

[DiogenesLamp]

That footnote does not cite one case or statute.

Natural law is not created by statutes or court decisions, it is created by God. So believed the Founders.

[Tau Food]

It does not matter who wrote the book. You cannot take an opinion out of a book that you find and pretend that all of the Founding Fathers and all of the people who ratified our national Constitution are bound by that opinion even if the opinion seems to you somehow relevant. And, in this case, the opinion is clearly just that. There is no primary source in the form of a case or statute to support anything said in that footnote. Whoever wrote that footnote seemed to like the book that Vattel wrote. That does not serve to make that book an amendment to our Constitution. And, it does not mean that everyone had to like the book that Vattel wrote.

You know, I really have trouble believing that you have ever imagined that the Constitution can be amended or properly interpreted based upon a footnote like that. I suspect that you were so desperate in your attempt to deny the reality of two elections that you would have grasped at anything to find a way out of that outcome. Do you really wonder why the Supreme Court did not grab that footnote and run with it? Really?

Just follow the Constitution. The Founding Fathers told you that the President had to be a natural born citizen. That is all they told you about the citizenship requirement. That is all that they wanted to tell you about it. You are just going to have to accept that reality and somehow find a way to survive with a little bit of uncertainty about which Founders believed what about that provision.

Just join me and vote for Ted Cruz. What can go wrong? ;-)