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 ...
And how do you determine if someone is naturalized if it can be done at any age and doesn't require a process to accomplish it?
If citizenship depends upon statute for its grant or dealienage.
OK so if statute says that a person born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen at birth then how do you tell naturalized from natural-born?
Their citizenship does not depend upon statute for its grant or dealienage.
And we're back to square one. Thanks for letting me play.
To better state it:
Their citizenship does not depend upon statute, it requires no grant or dealienage.
“Square one”? How so?
Its been written in judicial rulings. For example:
U.S. V Wong Kim Ark (1898) SCOTUS
[An alien parents] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvins Case, 7 Coke, 6a, strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject.
Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
Every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.- Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
H. Brook Paige v. James Condos, Secretary of State of Vermont and President Barack Obama: Robert R. Bent, Presiding Judge
While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattels treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase– The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.â€â€“has constitutional significance or that his use of parentsâ€in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression natural born Citizen is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.—Vermont Superior Court, November 14, 2012
(note: apostrophes and quotation marks were removed to eliminate HTML errors)
I respect Constitutional amendments as actions/attempts to correct such to the norms of the times within the framework of the idea that all persons are created equal. Getting to that status did need time. I think many people today think/believe the US has not yet created a Nation of equal rights for all.
The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. 'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.
- Born in or out of a country.
- Both parents are citizens.
- One parent is a citizen.
- Neither parent is a citizen.
What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable".
I think that is wonderful and if it works for you, use it. The important thing is that you have a standard that you can live with.
I like the citizen at birth standard. Anyone born as a citizen is a natural born citizen. It is an application of the natural law principle that dictates (in Spanish):
"No quiero cambiar las reglas que funcionan bien."
The English translation of this natural law principle is:
"I do not want to change the rules that work well ."
“The laws of nature are unchangeable”.
That may or may not be true, depending on the law of nature we are talking about but what IS changeable is man’s interpretation and understanding of the laws of nature.
At one time, it was widely believed that the law of nature dictated that the sun revolved around the earth. Man’s understanding of the law of nature regarding the workings of the solar system has changed.
At one time, the law of nature was interpreted to mean that the races of man differed inherently in intellect. Man’s understanding of that law of nature has changed.
Judging citizenship by parentage is a flawed system since in all the years of the American republic prior to the last quarter century, there was no way to definitively prove fatherhood.
An American woman could have been impregnated by a non-citizen male and no one would ever be the wiser.
The law says that any person born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a citizen at birth. Wouldn't that include children born here of citizen parents?
This is of course the natural analysis. An apple tree cannot produce oranges. An apple tree can only produce apples. Even if an apple tree is planted in the middle of an orange grove, it can only produce apples and never oranges. Similarly, being an American citizen, the mother of Ted Cruz produced an American citizen. The fact that she was surrounded by Canadians at the time does not change anything. As an American citizen, she produced an American citizen at birth. Mr. Cruz is thus a natural born citizen.
Any law would include a NBC’s but NBC’s are not in any law.
The law does not include people born here of non-citizen parents so they would be natural-born citizens too?
You’re ignoring the natural facts. You agreed that a child of citizen parents is a NBC. So knowing that and making the broader statement that “all persons born and subject to the jurisdiction of” are citizens would of course include NBC’s, naturally....but the law is to make a citizen where one was not by nature.
And back to square one yet again. Natural-born citizenship is determined by an unwritten rule somewhere that nobody can reference, but we don't need to because we have you. Again, thanks for letting me play.
Well when I was growing up pot meant something you cooked with. As has been pointed out in this thread and countless others it is a term of art of common knowledge at the time it was written into out Constitution. While I would like to send you back there to hear for your self I can’t. All that can be done is offer as much evidence as there is. Thanks.
No, I have never seen that book, but if there is one thing of which I am certain, I am certain that where there existed support for a legal proposition in the form of a case or statute, the authors of that text would have utilized them. Along with that page from the text, you included the Act (statute) which requested that the court prepare the text. That Act reads in pertinent part as follows:
"That the Judges of the Supreme Court are hereby required to examine and report to the next Legislature, which of the English Statutes are in force in this Commonwealth, and which of those Statutes in their opinion ought to be incorporated into the Statute Laws of the Commonwealth."
In other words, the Legislature was requesting the Supreme Court to report to the Legislature about which English statutes were already duplicated by the statutes of Pennsylvania and which other English statutes the Supreme Court believed should be enacted by the state legislature. So, of course, the legislature wanted the Supreme Court to make reference to statutes existing in both England and Pennsylvania. I have not seen the entire text, but I am as certain as I can be that s Court wishing to describe the then existing laws of Pennsylvania would have made reference to any and all relevant statutes and case law. In fact, the very next paragraph cites a then existing federal statute. If you have a copy of that book, look around and I am certain that you will find many statutes and cases cited therein. Any competent effort to describe the current laws in any state will of necessity include references to relevant statutes and case law.
As to the definition of natural born citizen, it is not our fault that the authors of our Constitution did not provide a more detailed definition of the phrase. I suspect that every person at that Convention believed the matter to be of very little import compared to questions like the powers to be delegated to the three branches of the federal government, the relationship between the states and the federal government, how to protect little states from big states, etc. I doubt that you would have found anyone sitting in a corner worrying that Electors might have a difficult time interpreting this little phrase. Had they thought it more important, they would have said more than they did. No one should drive himself crazy over this relatively small matter. Use the definition that makes you most comfortable and all will be well.
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.