Posted on 02/12/2016 7:32:25 AM PST by NKP_Vet
That would only be true (according to, and under laws enacted by Congress which stipulate who is born as a citizen, and arguably who is under status "alien to the United States" at birth for failing to meet the stipulated requirements) if he had been born sometime between 1802 and 1855.
That supposition is based upon one of the legal authorities you have been citing on previous threads. Rogers v. Belli
Under part IV of the majority's decision, that portion of the decision is preambled by the phrase; "The statutes culminating in 301 merit review:"
Continuing on in that same review under part V, wihin discussion under 4.) of that part V it states (underlining and bold added for emphasis);
And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens. Congress [401 U.S. 815, 831] responded to that situation only by enacting the 1855 statute. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S., at 311 . But more than 50 years had expired during which, because of the withholding of that benefit by Congress, citizenship by such descent was not bestowed. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 673 -674. Then, too, the Court has recognized that until the 1934 Act the transmission of citizenship to one born abroad was restricted to the child of a qualifying American father, and withheld completely from the child of a United States citizen mother and an alien father. Montana v. Kennedy, supra. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/815
Can you see it? After 1855 that condition had been responded to by Congress, in effect had been changed by Congress. After that change a person born to a U.S. citizen father was not an alien, but was born a citizen according to definitions of who was born a citizen (and arguably also, who was not).
Note also again the phrase; "But more than 50 years had expired during which, because of the withholding of that benefit by Congress, citizenship by such descent was not bestowed."
AFTER that "more than 50 years" citizenship was "bestowed" yet not bestowed by Act of Congress, that bestowing originating from a natural father, being conveyed from there (from himself -- not "from Congress") to his own children (Natural law) yet that condition recognized to having been the method of conveyance of citizenship within codifications of the laws of the United States which Congress is empowered by the Constitution itself to write -- as long as the laws thus written are not in some way found to be unconstitutional, or else otherwise (by Acts of Congress) repealed/changed/ in some way modified.
You've been missing that 1855 change. But I *think* know where your argument may turn to, next. It will turn away from arguing "alien, alien, alien" (smirk smirk smirk) to huffn' n puffn' over the phrase "citizen by statute".
Regardless, you must drop continuing pursuit of the "born an alien" line of reasoning, or else face being bested on that score by even the likes of little 'ol me. Just a hick from the sticks...(although not without agreement and some degree of support from those who are practicing attorneys, including one who just so happens to be a freeper also. You know of whom I am speaking of, I assume).
The 1834 adjustment/change in U.S. code extended the same citizenship by descent to being conveyed maternally as well as paternally in instances where only one parent was a U.S. citizen.
In this, citizenship is not being conveyed by statute, but is conveyed from parent to child, yet even under concepts of Natural Law which conditions are recognized and stipulated by statute.
That is somewhat different than being made a citizen by statute, which Belli arguably was also there having been changes and modifications of the codes after the time of his own birth (1939).
One arguably cannot be born both; a citizen, and an alien.
Or go ahead. Keep trying to assert that, needing to talk out of both sides of the face in order to do so, playing the middle against both ends (when not playing the ends against the middle) as you have upon occasion been indulging in -- and I may just come along and embarrass you yet further on this "born an alien" claim (as I likely just have).
What are you going to do now? Bully me, telling me what a lawyer you are (and that I am not)? That makes no difference. I just pointed out one of your errors. I would say "deal with it" but I'm sick of the smoke and mirrors game. At the least -- drop the "Cruz was born an alien" nonsense!
The statutes which stipulate that Cruz was a citizen at birth (hence not an alien at birth) were ruled in Rogers v. Belli to be Constitutional, and arguably to have been Constitutional all along, at each stage of change and/or development (including at those times between 1802 and 1855 in which due to circumstance of his birth had his birth occurred in the same circumstances in that 1802-1855 time window, would have rendered him to be "alien at birth") or else there is no ruling authority in this matter other than the less-than fully consistent wordings which are found in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments to that Constitution.
The majority of the Supreme Court (by 5-3 margin) found that to not be true, having there found Section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality act of 1952 to be Constitutional, thus binding -- which does also preclude (set aside/falsify the notion) identification of Senator Cruz as being born under condition of; being an alien at birth, etc.
If not an alien at birth, there is no need for him to have been by some other means "naturalized", dicta from Justice Black (joined by Justice Marshall and Justice Douglas) dissenting from majority in that case, notwithstanding.
No. I'm going to ignore you after making a brief rebuttal to your silly argument. Obviously, you don't know how to interpret or apply case law. Even the State Department, in it's manual for adjudicating claims to US citizenship, says that persons born abroad are presumed aliens. A Canadian BC is prima facia proof of being an alien.
In Bellei, all 9 justices agree that Bellei was a citizen until he was 21 years old. The issue wasn't making him a citizen, all 9 justices operated from the same (necessary) premise that Bellei was a naturalized citizen in the first place. The issue before the court was whether it was constitutional to impose a US residency requirement in order to keep the citizenship, after it was granted.
Your blockquote from the Bellei case proves your contention to be false, by the way. It sees two options for the person born abroad. Alien, or naturalized. Until 1855, they were aliens. And fact of the statutory construction, see the progression of law if it had been applied to Bellei, as the law evolved. "Not until 1934 would that person have had any conceivable claim to United States citizenship." Bellei would have been a US citizen by operation of the 1855 act, if his father had been the one to transmit citizenship. And the reason 1855 has play in the analysis is that Bellei's father had never resided in the US.
Not when quoting from a dissenting Supreme Court justice, as you have upon occasion when citing Rogers v. Belli.
In that instance you were relying upon dicta (opinion of a Court Justice expressed which was more along lines of discussing of his own view, as compared to being among deciding factors upon which the case was decided by the majority).
In that same case the majority of the Court had entered into some amount of discussion pertaining to the various changes to Naturalization laws which did include who would be considered a citizen, at birth.
As the majority noted -- there is no "second class" citizen status.
Yet in that case what was being argued was whether or not it was Constitutional for Congress to have enacted laws which that place additional qualifiers upon that status which would result in the loss of citizenship status being conveyed from a U.S. citizen mother to her offspring.
Belli did not meet any of the requirements under the laws, even as those additional requirements changed during his lifetime, becoming more generously liberal (less restrictive) towards conveyance of citizenship status due -- not from or by Act of Congress" but acquired from the parent, and that acquisition at birth recognized under the laws at the time of Belli's birth. Citizenship which he did at one time unarguably hold (having traveled under U.S. passport) despite the majority having included some amount of dicta of their own saying it was not about what Belli could lose, but what he could gain. That portion was more "wind and noise" than anything like firm basis for the decision...
At that point, under the laws in effect at time of his birth and afterwards, prior to filing suit, Belli had already lost what citizenship he had acquired at birth, and so that dicta could possibly be seen in that light.
That portion of the discussion could also be seen as expressions of defensive nature coming from the majority for having affirmed that laws can be written by Congress which, if conditions are not met, serve to deny citizenship to an individual who at one time in that same individual's lifetime DID have status of citizenship. It was not denied either by the majority or the dissenting minority of the Court that Belli, at least during a stipulated window of time as it were, was not within that window "a citizen".
If anyone think that not true -- going by what the majority had written -- what would have been outcome of a challenge raised by Belli if raised when he was yet a minor? Would any court have been able to say that Belli --- born of a mother who was herself a citizen (if the case had come to a court while Belli was still a minor, thus still had time to fulfill the additional requirements) --- was not at that time a citizen?
Those conditions would have resulted in Belli having no cause for complaint, unless some official had tried to deny citizenship status prior to that time period being still yet open to him to fulfill the additional requirements for his own citizenship to be "from birth", in which case Belli would most likely have prevailed, for there would have been (if he still a minor child) no grounds from within what laws were in effect at time of his birth pertaining to definitions of citizenship (and thus the need for "naturalization" if lacking meeting the conditions stipulated) for any to argue against Belli having citizenship had the conditions been different (ie., he having not yet reached the age where he could no longer under the laws of the United States, fulfill what additional requirements Congress had stipulated for himself to being classified as citizen from birth).
Bottom line in the Rogers v. Belli; It was the failure of fulfilling residency requirements that led to Belli, by the time he initially filed suit, found to have not been a citizen according to law for failing to meet those requirements.
It will do no real good for you to turn now again back to citing dicta from a dissenting SC Justice who babbled on a bit about "citizen by statute" etc. That is still dicta also, for it was not among expressions of the majority (and even contrary to expressions joined in agreement by the majority as for cause of finding as they did).
But it has been one helluva legalistic, drag-it-off-into-the bushes smokescreen sort of affair that has introduced arguably inapplicable considerations & complications which can be difficult to sort out, I will grant you that.
Same to you -- in this particular instance.
all 9 justices operated from the same (necessary) premise that Bellei was a naturalized citizen in the first place
Only Black in his dissent claimed that Belli was "naturalized" yet when he did so, he continued on citing the 1870 law which included the provision "natural born citizen" that would apply to Belli if that was brought forwards, even under Black's own expressed concept of "naturalized".
That's another mistake you have been making.
Truncated quoting, which taking things out of context in that manner, then allows yourself to assert in your own exercise of non-applicable "dicta", definitions and limitations which were not expressly included in the majority's decision, and were not that which the majority's decision relied.
And after that -- they were not. Wrap your mind around that, please. Or keep making a fool out of yourself on this forum, in regards to that narrow aspect of this issue.
The finding that Bellei was naturalized is not dicta. It is a necessary and essential condition for stripping him of his citizenship, which the court upheld.
-- Belli did not meet any of the requirements under the laws ... --
Yes he did. He was a citizen for the first 21 years of his life. If he didn't meet the conditions for being a citizen, he would not have been a citizen for the first 21 years of his life.
There have been cases where the person's parents didn't meet the Us residency requirement before giving birth. Hypothetical Obama is one, Thomas v. Lynch - 5th Circuit - August 7, 2015 - 14-60297 is another. Result? Aliens.
-- It will do no real good for you to turn now again back to citing dicta from a dissenting SC Justice who babbled on a bit about "citizen by statute" etc. --
There is plenty of majority language in Bellei and in other cases, all saying the same thing. 9 of 9 justices have agreed in every case taken up, born abroad results in either alien, or naturalized. There is no exception.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration thatall persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)
The 14th amendment, defines two mutually exclusive groups of citizens.
Of those two 14th amendment buckets, which is Cruz in (if any!)? He's not in the first one, so he must be in the second one.
So, is it your position that the majority stripped citizenship from a citizen who was NOT naturalized? Have you studied the law on that point? Familiar with Afroyim? Kawakita?
Bid you miss where the majority in Bellei said:
'No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are compiled with ...' United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 475, 37 S.Ct. 422, 425, 61 L.Ed. 853 (1917). See United States v. Ness, 245 U.S. 319, 38 S.Ct. 118, 62 L.Ed. 321 (1917); Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17, 49 S.Ct. 15, 73 L.Ed. 156 (1928)
Or Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.
those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas
Bullshit. That consideration (the term "naturalized") was not expressed and applied to Belli from among the majority as included in their reasoning and justification for reversing a lower court's decision.
I had said;
You replied;
Yes he did. He was a citizen for the first 21 years of his life. If he didn't meet the conditions for being a citizen, he would not have been a citizen for the first 21 years of his life.
I was repeating a concept from the decision, and had included enough context, or so I thought. Why play games with this? Did you not read that I included considerations that Congress can impose yet further conditions which must be met? It was to those further conditions I was speaking when I wrote that Belli did not fulfill "any of the requirements" just as majority of the the Court did under IV in the very last sentence of that part, of that decision;
The plaintiff [401 U.S. 815, 827] nevertheless failed to satisfy any form of the condition. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/815.html#sthash.wR4pp3ES.dpuf
DUH.
Which leaves you to have just argued against one of the very "legal authorities" that you've frequently cited -- not me. Are you doing this in attempt to discredit my argument? It could work for those who buy into your bullshitting and smoke blowing, but for those who take the time to study the case, it fails.
Additionally, it does absolutely no good for you to cite the 14th Amendment when referring to Rogers v. Belli, for the majority found that what basis for claim there was for Belli's citizenship WAS NOT based upon the 14th Amendment, and was in fact outside of that consideration. In fact, that goes to the underlying assertions made by Belli...which the Court ruled against. I attempted to get ahead of that very thing, but you would bot allow yourself to be dissuaded. Well good, then. It has led to the funeral of your own arguments.
From the majority of Rogers v. Belli under V (underlining added for emphasis);
The central fact, in our weighing of the plaintiff's claim to continuing and therefore current United States citizenship, is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. And he has not been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All this being so, it seems indisputable that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to plaintiff Bellei. He simply is not a Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence citizen. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/815.html#sthash.wR4pp3ES.dpuf
That blows the rest of what you have been citing -- from Black's dissent, almost entirely off the page. Belli was not a 14th Amendment citizen, there being recognized by the majority yet another classification --- namely, those who are citizens at birth, having acquired rights of citizenship from a parent or parents, yet who can still in particularly stipulated conditions, not retain that citizenship which was bestowed due to parentage if born overseas, provided if not meeting the additional conditional residency requirements of the law.
I'm going to slightly miniaturize what you turned to next;
Excuse me?
Nine of nine DID NOT agree to those two conditions, the "born alien" condition having been superseded by the 1855 law as I just established(!!!), and which word "alien" the majority made NO MENTION OF while attaching that consideration directly upon Belli.
In fact, the majority made, or perhaps better said recognized an exception to those conditions from within the law in question which Constitutionality was being brought into question, even while they set somewhat aside the 14th Amendment language which leads to the idea there are no exceptions.
It is from Black, in his dissent, there is talk of there being no exceptions. There were six Justices which most certainly did not agree there was no exception, your own continuing assertions notwithstanding.
You are arguing from dicta in this aspect, which has been pointed out to you upon numerous previous occasion.
Naturalized at birth, according to Justice Black's understanding of what being "naturalized" is inclusive of, if we are going to be citing Black's dicta from that case, also includes consideration of the original 1870 law written by the founders of the Constitution which clearly stipulated that persons born abroad to citizens of the United States were quote-unquote "natural born citizens", at birth, for Black did reference that law as being among those items which should applied according to his own reasoning (dicta).
And around and around it goes...
Meanwhile, HERE IS THE EXCEPTION which you appear to me to v=be studiously avoiding recognizing, whether that be that you have been misled due to the conflicting and at times contradictory juxtapositions within Rogers v. Belli. or for other reason I cannot say, from under VI of the majority's opinion, themselves having continued after stating that Belli was not a 14th Amendment citizen (albeit had been a citizen, at birth), beginning from midway through 5.) ;
We do not accept the notion that those utterances are now to be judicially extended to citizenship not based upon the Fourteenth Amendment and to make citizenship an absolute. That it is not an absolute is demonstrated by the fact that even Fourteenth Amendment citizenship by naturalization, when unlawfully procured, may be set aside. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S., at 267 n. 23.6. A contrary holding would convert what is congressional generosity into something unanticipated and obviously undesired by the Congress. Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process. The plaintiff here would force the Congress to choose between unconditional conferment of United States citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. We are not convinced that the Constitution requires so rigid a choice. If it does, the congressional response seems obvious. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/815.html#sthash.wR4pp3ES.dpuf
The part in the above about "rather than deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and regulate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process." does not mean that in Belli's instance that is what Congress did, but was speaking towards what Congress did not do, for other than the additional conditions of residency which were required to be fulfilled, Belli was indeed a citizen at birth, from birth, yet still by his own inaction (failing to fulfill residency requirements) did in effect lose the very birthright citizenship that was conveyed upon himself maternally by his U.S. citizen mother. Nowhere else from within the majority opinion was it contemplated that Belli was in some manner "naturalized" either, despite your own repeated insistence that they did include contemplation for that (some concept of Belli having undergone "naturalization") apply to Belli under the conditions of his birth.
Turn to dissenting dicta in effort to otherwise support that assertion is futile.
So much for "all none agreeing" there is no exception to restrictions derived from 14th Amendment language.
Your legal reasoning (thesis?) has been now shot to pieces, whether you realize that or not.
I hope it didn’t take you long to type that.
Going by how the majority discussed the Belli case, YES, that is it exactly. Which is much of why Black dissented, I take it.
According to the majority, Belli was not a 14th Amendment citizen. Arguments arising from the either/or, all or nothing language coming from there was set aside by the majority.
From there an exception (at least one) arises from the opening words of the 14th Amendment;
From under heading of V listing 3.);
"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/815.html#sthash.wR4pp3ES.dpuf
Acquisition of citizenship not "by statute" and not by being "naturalized", but by being born abroad of an American citizen parent.
That is a category, an exception as it were to 14th Amendment contemplations. The Justices in majority go into some further explanation of the 14th Amendment's background, supplying there their own understanding of how it came about and why it may not have included language specific to persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents (or single parent, as the conditions later further include -- which they also go into some detail outlining when each change to the codes occurred).
Please notice that nowhere among majority opinion in Belli did the majority ascribe Belli acquisition of citizenship as having come about through process of naturalization-- for that would entail one being naturalized while outside the confines of the United States. Yet somehow, at birth. Naturalized at birth...? What a strange concept, and one not openly contemplated by the majority who decided Rogers v. Belli but among dissenter "dicta" contemplations and reasons for why they dissented.
Although the majority found that Congress could, under the Constitution impose U.S. residency requirements (conditions) for those born overseas to U.S. citizen parents, the majority did not in the least rely upon invoking that there had been a naturalization aspect for those born under the conditions which Belli was (and Cruz was also).
Being as Senator Cruz's natural mother has met the residency requirements, and the Senator "Ted" Cruz has also (as far as we have been informed, nothing having been established be truth of the matter contrarily that I am aware of) that results in Cruz being classified a citizen from birth as opposed to being in some way naturalized.
Slow down. Try reading Rogers v Belli again, this time looking to see if what you've previously been arguing can rationally enough be set aside (even falsified) for reasons I have outlined, beginning perhaps with recognition that according to the majority, when they discussed the progression and changes of previous era's codes they held their mouths as if from 1802 to 1855 a person born overseas to a U.S. citizen father would have been as you have alluded ---seen to be -- "aliens", but that that contemplation/categorization had been changed, thus no longer were persons born under the conditions which led to inclusion of how Belli was born (to a U.S. citizen mother and a "foreigner") be "alien", but instead born a citizen, albeit a citizen not immune from further considerations affect that status.
That is the exception differing from being born needing to be quote-unquote "naturalized".
It appears to me that Justice Black didn't *quite* seem to get it, either. At one point in his discussion (his opinion) Black kept toying around with ideas contingent upon, regulated by the 14th Amendment --- even though the majority of the Court had identified that language to be inapplicable to Belli's circumstances.
Dissent: naturalized and IN the 14th amendment ("in the US", in the 14th amendment, really means "anywhere in the world"), so Afroyim applies, which results in a conclusion that naturalized citizenship cannot have a statutory expiration date, contingent on post-grant residency
The dissent thought the majority was inventing a new type of naturalized citizen, "naturalized outside of the 14th amendment."
Are you familiar with the cases that touch on involuntary stripping of citizenship, of a person whose citizenship was not obtained by naturalization? You should get so.
Now, I am bored with your calling me names, and will pretend you do not exist. Consider it my favor to FR - keeping the peace and all that good rot.
“J.B. Williams appears to be a disgruntled former Obama birther, as well.”
There are no liberals on News With Views. Conservative to the max.
Misread your reply.
Bullshit.
Although the majority had set aside the 14th Amendment as not directly applicable, they nowhere contemplated language inclusive of the word "naturalization" be applied to Belli's instance, and had in fact set that notion aside also, as I just touched upon while quoting the majority opinion.
Oh boo fricken hoo.
You've just had you ass soundly whipped, and now you get huffy about it.
If you hadn't been running around this forum claiming that Cruz was "born an alien" this would have never had to happen.
You misread the caselaw -- I SHOWed you just how, and then you whine that I called you names.
You've got nothing much except dicta from the dissent.
Why should I expend any good faith to point you in the right direction? Using good faith in a discussion with a determined idiot only makes for a bad scene, and lord knows FR is a bad enough scene without the spectacle of you and I in argument.
I can still make my points, and you can makes yours too. As for having nothing much except dicta from the dissent, you, you ignorant lying son of a bitch, you didn't even acknowledge the Wong Kim Ark citation. "nothing much except dicta from the dissent.", while you have your hands over your eyes, fingers in your ears, and yelling like a spoiled brat. You are a loser.
So have mine, which have gone a long way in refuting what "your posts" spoke.
That is itself a pitiful lie.
Could have fooled me about the "not off in a huff" part. Then again, here you are, coming back to toss off insult. I can only assume that is because after having your assertions soundly defeated, you have nothing left but to repeat the non-applicable while ignoring the hows and why-fore's of the reasons that many of your key assertions are inapplicable.
Sorry buster. It is your own wounded pride that isn't worth spit. I made my case at each step along the way, dealing with your assemblage of assertions and defeating those in detail, citing your own chief primary source from whence you had gotten the ill-founded suppositions.
But don't feel so bad, you are not the first attorney I have been able to lay low, here on the pages of FreeRepublic. bwaahaahAa
You don't have to continue attempting to point the way, although you should get credit for helping people see what cases themselves may be looked upon if the issue of Cruz's eligibility does make it into a courtroom.
Yet those ways (the case law) have thus far failed to produce what you claim they did, once they are examined within context.
I guess you noticed that as I cited/quoted what I have, I did attempt to identify from where in what is published for Rogers v Belli what I was quoting could be found?
I did so hoping to make it easier for anyone reading along to find the context, and hopefully read BOTH; some of what preceded, and read what closely followed the relevant portions which I quoted. Lord knows how difficult and complex the issue is, all on it's own. Having to go digging through page after page just to find context of what people are talking about is wearisome. But I've done it, and so now have some considerations for those who may not have. That would not be the methodology of a liar, one would think...
You have been in error. Cruz was not "born an alien". Start there maybe. That is where this conversation, on this thread, began. I went to the "right directions" which you pointed towards, and found those did not establish what you think they did. I am not alone in this.
I showed how you had been misrepresenting the majority discussions from Rogers v. Belli by having not quoted far enough -- or else possibly have been, as was apparently Justice Black, somewhat confused as to what portions of it more actually meant.
I am neither ignorant, lying, nor a son of a bitch (leave my own mother out of this, thank you very much) yet saw no reason to chase after whatever point you were trying to make from early 20th century Kim Wong Ark when that appeared to have been tied to 14th Amendment considerations, and is not nearly so applicable to Senator Cruz's situation as may be Rogers v. Belli which majority indicated was somewhat outside of being addressed by the 14th Amendment.
So what that I did not dance to each and every stanza of the tune as you called the cadence here at the last...
Otherwise; so far I HAVE been able to show by case law authority that your arguments have been all wet.
Having read through Kim Wong Ark recently, it is doubtful your main contentions could be sufficiently dried out there to merit further consideration.
Excuse the hell oughta' me for after having spent the better part of a day on this (and many other full days of study too) I did not at that point drop everything to go run and see if I could establish whatever you were trying to establish from Wong Kim Ark, for you.
It was just so much more of the same 'ol same 'ol drag it off into obscure citation territory, huffn' n an a-puffn as far as I could tell, and again -- not precisely applicable for whatever portion of that was reliant upon 14th Amendment language.
Others can say the same thing, and come away with strikingly different conclusions than does yourself, which renders the "decades of case law experience" not very impressive to me, unless the aim would be to distract, and thus be better able to fool a judge, perhaps.
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.