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]

You can’t go drooling after natural law in one instance, and “artificial law” in another.

I have no idea what DiogeneseLamp means when he talks about me supporting natural law for slavery. I think he's just being puzzle-headed again.

[DoodleDawg]

You just go round and round on that circular reasoning merry-go-round.

It's still reasoning. Unlike your positions.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Because they were regarded as incompatible with principles of American law. (You will have to read further to find that out.)

The footnote that we discussed was not supported by reference to any case or Pennsylvania statute

No it was not. This is because "natural law" is not law according to statute, it is law according to nature. It would be contradictory to the concept of "natural law" to link natural law to a statute.

so it was probably a discussion of what the judges believed should be passed as a statute in Pennsylvania.

And where would they get an opinion so heavily contradictory to what the founders voted on in their own Capitol City of Philadelphia? I assure you, everyone in the legal community of Philadelphia knew what was the meaning and intent of "natural born citizen" during the convention in 1787.

It is very unlikely that anyone then present would get so terribly confused as to allow the Founders to go with English common law (which offers no protection from foreign intrigue) while all the Judges of the Supreme court of Pennsylvania, and several judges of the US Supreme court went with Vattel's principles of natural law.

How reasonable is it to believe there could be such a contradictory divide on this very relevant point at that time?

But, whatever it was, it was not binding on the Framers of our national Constitution.

More like it is the other way around. The legal system of Pennsylvania, which was by far the most exposed to the ideas of the convention, modeled itself after what those founders believed and told them.

It is more like the laws of Pennsylvania reflect the laws which the founders intended for the entire nation.

I have no doubt that Vattel had lots of fans, but I am also certain that he had plenty of critics.

He is the most cited Jurist during the first 50 years of this nation's history. (According to the Supreme court in the case of UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION )

Therefore I would suggest that his adherents far outnumbered his critics in American jurisprudence of the time period.

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.

A policy which is currently followed by the United States of America right now. Nuke physicists and other critical technology experts are very heavily controlled on their travel to foreign countries. They have to get permission from the State Department in order to do so, if they are allowed to do so at all.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have no idea what DiogeneseLamp means when he talks about me supporting natural law for slavery. I think he's just being puzzle-headed again.

It has become increasingly apparent to me that you have trouble understanding anything I say. Again, this is because you are ill suited to engage in this discussion.

If you carefully read what I wrote, you will notice it says nothing about supporting natural law for slavery. I am saying that slavery is contradictory to natural law and you ought to know that in your heart.

Remember that Declaration of Independence thing? Remember how Thomas Jefferson deliberately put that "all men are created equal" line in there? He was asserting natural law when he did that, though it was then in grave contradiction to then existing common and statutory law.

Slavery is contrary to natural law. I can not make it any simpler for you.

[DiogenesLamp]

It's still reasoning. Unlike your positions.

Sure it is sweetie. You go right on believing that. How about an ice cream cone?

[DoodleDawg]

It's confusing to you because you don't seem to have the mental acuity or knowledge base necessary to process it.

No I just don't your imagination when it comes to facts.

I base it on the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. In other words, axiomatic consequences of a stated premise

Except there is no logic in your stated premise. Math is true or it isn't. Two plus two will always equal four and you can demonstrate it in any number of ways. Your claims on natural-born citizenship, on the other hand, are based on your beliefs alone. You cannot point to anything solid to support your position that isn't also opinion. There is nothing axiomatic about your position, much as you would like to believe it. It is eminently questionable in every respect. And the fact that you have resorted to attempts at insult and mocking me shows just how pathetic your arguments really are.

Having watched you on Civil War threads and now on birther threads I see you for what you are, an arrogant little man who really has very little to be arrogant about. I've watched you twist words and torture logic in attempts to prove your point, and for the most part I've enjoyed tweaking you and watching you demonstrate your buffoonery. But now you're just annoying and tiresome. So toddle along and sell your crazy to someone else. I'm no longer in the market.

[wintertime]

“Like I said, you act like a little child, and now you have a merry-go-round.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I haven't followed this thread in the least, but I immediately recognize a personal insult when I see it.

[Nero Germanicus]

What do the laws of nature have to say about rescheduling marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 so that it can be used in federally funded medical research?

[Nero Germanicus]

Cool!

[Nero Germanicus]

The Wong Court could also be asked if the Wong ruling itself has withstood the test of time at 117 years without reversal and counting.

If ballot boxes were stuffed, it would have been nice if any of the oppposing political parties or candidates had filed election fraud complaints.

There was never a time in the history of the republic when the media wasn’t biased. At the Founding, it was the federalist media versus the republican media. In the 19th century the many of the major newspapers were wholly owned subsidiaries of the political parties. Today we have corporate media which reflect the views of their owners and major shareholders.

[morphing libertarian]

The supreme court in it’s infinite wisdom turned down how many opportunities to answer this question during the last 7 years. So here we go again. They will take a case however against republicans.

[Nero Germanicus]

“Trump names Cruz when asked about VP spot”
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260492-trump-names-cruz-when-asked-about-vp-spot

[GregNH]

Citizen at birth and natural-born citizen are synonymous.

Sorry but I don't see that written eiter.

[DoodleDawg]

Sorry but I don't see that written eiter.

Then what's the difference?

[GregNH]

Citizen at birth and natural-born citizen are synonymous.

Then why do we need a code for one and not the other?

[DoodleDawg]

Then why do we need a code for one and not the other

Not sure what you're asking. We have one code that defines natural-born citizen/citizen at birth. Why would we need another?

[GregNH]

Not sure what you're asking. We have one code that defines natural-born citizen/citizen at birth. Why would we need another?

It's your question not mine. Your question is where is the code for NBC and I'm saying there is not one needed, as you acknowledged I'm not questioning whether they are, but whether they alone are.

So you acknowledge that they are but can't accept that there is not a law needed for them and because there is a law for all other types of citizenship we need one for the only obvious type.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Wong Court could also be asked if the Wong ruling itself has withstood the test of time at 117 years without reversal and counting.

Given how it has been used to justify anchor babies and birth tourism, I think we can safely say that it hasn't stood the test of time at all well. It has a demonstrable flaw, and in that regard it shares the same position as the Plessy vs Ferguson decision which was made by the same court.

It is very badly flawed because it has been so prone to misinterpretation regarding the children of non-resident aliens acquiring citizenship.

Certainly the case itself is clear on this point with those possessing the wit to read it and understand that it hinges on residency, but for whatever reason, the more accurate understanding seems to escape most legal people who have looked at it.

If ballot boxes were stuffed, it would have been nice if any of the oppposing political parties or candidates had filed election fraud complaints.

They were stuffed in areas under complete Democrat control, and for which witnesses and proof would be completely unavailable.

We only know that they were stuffed by employing some statistical analysis. I.E. situations in which more voters voted than were registered in the county and such.

And yes, our side is ball-less when it comes to fighting Democrat fraud.

There was never a time in the history of the republic when the media wasn’t biased. At the Founding, it was the federalist media versus the republican media. In the 19th century the many of the major newspapers were wholly owned subsidiaries of the political parties.

What you say is true, but took place during a time when all the available media was print, rather than elaborately acted out visual spectacles that bypass the normal analytical portion of the mind and go straight for the emotional/irrational serpent brain.

Modern Media is a highly functional brain washing machine that does not compare at all to reading opinions written down as text and which must be read by people with at least a minimal of cognitive ability.

Modern Television and movies have become an idiot herding system, which due to flaws in our franchise process have now resulted in the very lowest in intelligence, understanding and capability having far too much influence in steering the process towards irrational selections. (Such as Governor Moonbeam in California.)

In other words, the flaw in our voter requirements process, combined with the mind control effectiveness of the visual modern media brainwashing monopoly has resulted in a system that is steering us towards destruction, and will eventually crash our experimental Representative Republic.

Today we have corporate media which reflect the views of their owners and major shareholders.

It is a synergistic feedback loop. Liberal Urban Democrat Union members who are the monopoly of employees in these industries express liberal opinions as the societal norm, and this convinces others that they should hold these opinions as well. They merely accept the underlying premise that "this is the normal position that people should have", and the meme becomes self reinforcing due to the natural herd mentality of people.

Owners and Shareholders are eventually convinced that this is their opinions as well because of the effect of Liberals framing the debate in their favor and convincing vast swaths of the herd with the technological marvel which is their network brainwashing machine.

It is a chaotic system that stabilizes around a position because of artificial strange attractors created by Liberals who control the means of perturbing the system.

They are bending the consensus, which without their tampering, would coalesce around a different attraction point. A normal, non insane attraction point established by nature.

Currently the tail wags the dog.

[DoodleDawg]

So you acknowledge that they are but can't accept that there is not a law needed for them and because there is a law for all other types of citizenship we need one for the only obvious type.

No, what I'm not accepting is your position that citizens at birth and natural-born citizens are somehow different. If one is a citizen at birth then they don't need to be naturalized and are therefore what the Constitution calls natural-born citizens. If the Constitution identifies a third class of citizenship then I'm not finding it.

[Ray76]

Congress can naturalize persons and grant them citizenship at any time in that person’s life and requiring any process or none.