You just go round and round on that circular reasoning merry-go-round.
Like I said, you act like a little child, and now you have a merry-go-round.
Doodle Dawg on her logical merry-go-round depicted below.
Posted on 11/14/2015 2:48:45 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Maybe this will help then. Try assuming that God did not want the Founders to be any more specific than they were about the meaning of natural born citizen. Maybe God wants you to pray for an answer. If that makes things easier, great.
We need to somehow get you through this monster of a problem. And, I am always for more God.
Don't get me wrong. I am all in favor of Ted Cruz. I just object to the idea that we should lie to ourselves.
After Obama, I consider the eligibility requirements to be irrelevant. As Lincoln Said:
Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation.
Ted Cruz is the candidate I favor. I like Trump and Carson, but Ted Cruz is the only one I trust to fight for the right principles and to fight even when the odds are against him.
Actually, that is a pretty healthy attitude. If there is ever a candidate that the provision clearly excludes (like Ringo Starr), that candidate will not be elected anyway. It is not your fault that the Founders wrote that provision as they did. Probably very few of them gave it more than a moment's thought.
Ted Cruz - 2016!
Good for you!!
Citizen at birth and natural-born citizen are synonymous. The Constitution identifies two forms of citizenship: natural-born and naturalized. If you're not one then you're the other. Everyone identified in that section of the Federal code is a natural-born citizen.
It was the law governing the entire state of Pennsylvania, the Capitol of which was the US Capitol at the time the Constitution was written. The legal authorities of Pennsylvania ought to know the intention of the delegates better than any other. The state legislators and the US Congress even shared the same meeting hall.
With both the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the two predecessors of the United States Congress occupying Independence Hall from 1775 to 1783, the state legislature considered proposals for moving the seat of the state government. John Harris, Jr. offered to give 4 acres (2 ha) and 21 square perches (5,717 ft2; 531 m2) of land near the banks of the Susquehanna River in central Pennsylvania to the state, provided that it be eventually used as the site of the capital.[4][7] Harris also laid out a city in 1785, near his plot of land, and named it in honor of his father. In 1799, the legislature voted to relocate the capital to Lancaster instead of Harrisburg, because of Lancaster's greater population.
The legal system of Pennsylvania and that of the US government was inextricably entwined at the time of the Constitutional convention. The Supreme Court was also headquartered in Philadelphia, and among it's first members was James Wilson, John Marshall, and Bushrod Washington, all of whom came out heavily in citing jus sanguinus and some specifically citing Vattel on issues of citizenship.
And since I'm dealing with you then that's why your crap is so confusing.
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.
And you base that on what? Other than your own opinion?
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
Can you point me to somewhere that lists what "natural law" says on slavery?
The $64000 question is whether Congress gets to redefine NBC. If it does, then all this stuff is about as relevant as the buggy whip.
Also people may have on some higher principle detested the defiance of some “natural law” against slavery, nonetheless it was IN the Constitution, hence Constitutional without a question. You can’t go drooling after natural law in one instance, and “artificial law” in another.
You just go round and round on that circular reasoning merry-go-round.
Like I said, you act like a little child, and now you have a merry-go-round.
Doodle Dawg on her logical merry-go-round depicted below.
Is this the very first time the issue of the term “natural born citizen” in ANY context has come up against Congress’ rights without Congress prevailing?
If it isn’t, then I see your carousel and raise you one precedent.
As with a lot of other issues. Giving the Congress the power to redefine the meaning of words in the US Constitution is just insane. It is an obvious short circuit of the entire amendment process.
Congress can't change the qualifications for the Presidency by changing the law. It doesn't work like that.
It requires a constitutional amendment to change those requirements. Nothing less will do.
Insane things may be in the Constitution, but you don’t fix that by redefining the Constitution your own self. That is jumping out of frying pan into fire.
One insane thing in the Constitution is the power of the USSC to control anything it wishes. That was written into the beast.
Another insane thing in the Constitution was slavery.
So to complain that the Congress can furnish the meaning of a term used, is, itself, insane.
It's confusing to you because you don't seem to have the mental acuity or knowledge base necessary to process it. You are like a Gardner discussing rocket science. The topic is over your head.
And you base that on what? Other than your own opinion?
I base it on the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. In other words, axiomatic consequences of a stated premise.
Can you point me to somewhere that lists what "natural law" says on slavery?
Why? Can you not find the answer to that question in your own heart?
That is EXACTLY my point, but you stated it more eloquently.
I don't understand your question. I only know of a few instances in which congress contemplated the condition of "natural born citizen."
One time was just prior to the War of 1812 when it was imperative to distinguish American seaman from British imposters.
And another instance dealing with the Children of Aliens, I think.
That has not been proposed by anyone. What has been proposed is that original intent be accepted as the governing law.
Apparently, that book was a description of the English statutes that were in force in Pennsylvania and the English statutes that in the opinion of the judges "ought to be" incorporated into the laws of Pennsylvania. The footnote that we discussed was not supported by reference to any case or Pennsylvania statute so it was probably a discussion of what the judges believed should be passed as a statute in Pennsylvania. But, whatever it was, it was not binding on the Framers of our national Constitution.
I have no doubt that Vattel had lots of fans, but I am also certain that he had plenty of critics. As I recall, he also believed it proper for a nation to prevent workers from emigrating to other countries if their labor was deemed to be important.
That would appear to have been a mistake.
Another insane thing in the Constitution was slavery.
That was a deal with the devil. Those states which later objected to it, should have broke from the Union or let the other ones go.
So to complain that the Congress can furnish the meaning of a term used, is, itself, insane.
Yup. Giving congress the power to redefine the meanings of words in our governing document is utterly nuts.
As we have seen with the "gay marriage" issue (and others) giving even the Supreme Court that power has proven to be insane.
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.