lol- Yeah, the court opinion in the wong kim case was so instrumental to current law- not- As soveriegns, the courts have declared that a soveriegn passes their citizenship down to their offspring as per amendments and articles specifically 1401 and 1409- The congress DID and DOES have the right to declare who needs naturalization and who doesn’t- that’s a fact- and if you woudl bother to check it out, you would clearly see that Ted, McCain, Romney’s father etc all fall under the conferring of citizenship to a soveriegn’s child regardless of place of birth
It’s simple common sense- A citizen mother who is on vacation and has has a child overseas does NOT denounce her citizenship and transfer her ‘new citizenship of the foreign country’ over to her child because she has NOT gone through a process renouncing her US citizenship and declaring allegiance and gaining citizenship to the country in which she has her child- She is still a citizen of the US when she has her child-
Adn the icing o nthe cake? The child assumes the citizenship of it’s citizen mother or father because citizenship is automatically passed to the child UNTIL that child reaches the ‘age of accountability’ (legally, 18) and can choose whether or not they wish to Remain a US citizen or not-
I realize you wish Ted wasn’t a citizen- but there is a reason the courts have not weighed in on the matter and that reason is because they understand that congress DOES have the right to define who needs naturalization and who doesn’t-
It all boils down to two key terms “At Birth” and “By Birth” A court opinion in a case such as wong vs kim is irrelevant- it is court opinion that conflicts with many cases since and before that recognize congress’s right to declare who needs to go through a process of naturalization and who doesn’t- You may not agree with their right to do so- but recent court cases have made it clear it is their right- you can do your own research on this issue- and look up the 1401 law yourself- You can argue it isn’t law if you like, but the courts disagree with you- Even Larry Tribe- the lawyer who trump Misquoted, the lawyer who trump is deceitfully basing his sleazy attack on Ted’s citizenship, agrees Ted is a natural born citizen- and Tribe has far more experience than you or i when it comes to Natural born citizenship and the Naturalization process-
If you dont’ believe me, then look up Tribe’s own words on the issue- He Never said Ted wasn’t a natural born citizen- Trump deceitfully made it appear that He did- The bottom lien is that the majority of constitutional lawyers do believe that people in Ted’s position are natural born citizens- while only a handful of lawyers ignore the laws o n the books and argue he and people like him aren’t
[[“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”]]
That’s funny, because that court opinion flies in the face of current law- A citizenship acquires AT BIRTH, the citizenship of their parent who is a soveriegn citizen of the us who has every right, and indeed legal obligation to, as a sovereign of the US, to pass along their citizenship to their child- The underage child is bound by law to the same nation’s laws that the parent is bound by-
Not that you’ll accept any of this I’m sure- but the courts are very clear on this issue- and pointing to a court opinion that flies in the face of many consequent cases which refute that court opinion doesn’t help your case any
I’m not gettign into al ong drawn out argument over this- this issue has been beaten to death on FR- and like it or not, the courts have rueld that cognress does have a right and obligation to declare who needs to be naturalized and hwo doesn’t-
For soem excellent analysis and breakdown of the facts, please look up springfieldreformer here on FR and go through his posts on this topic- He, beign a lawyer, has doen a far better job than I could of explaining this issue in actual legal terms, and explaining why the courts have refused to take the issue up- There is a reason they haven’t
“lol- Yeah, the court opinion in the wong kim case was so instrumental to current law- not-”
The tactic of falsely denying the U.S. Supreme Court statement is not going to make it go away or lessen the truth of its accuracy. United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
“As soveriegns, the courts have declared that a soveriegn passes their citizenship down to their offspring as per amendments and articles specifically 1401 and 1409-”
That is an utterly false statement that is exactly opposite to reality and the truth. The U.S. Supreme Court decided a child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents was born without any U.S. citizenship, until and unless a U.S. Naturalization Act naturalized the child as a naturalized U.S. citizen. United States v. Wong Kim Ark case only observed the earlier Supreme court decisions that found a child born abroad acquired U.S. citizenship only by naturalization, with the exception of a child born with diplomatic immunity.
“The congress DID and DOES have the right to declare who needs naturalization and who doesn’t- that’s a fact- and if you woudl bother to check it out, you would clearly see that Ted, McCain, Romney’s father etc all fall under the conferring of citizenship to a soveriegn’s child regardless of place of birth”
That frequently made claim is a total lie and a fraud. Proof is easily found by simply looking at the fact of how the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Government denied U.S. citizenship to any child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents during the periods of time when there was an absence of a U.S. Naturalization Act to confer naturalized U.S. citizenship.
“It’s simple common sense- A citizen mother who is on vacation and has has a child overseas does NOT denounce her citizenship and transfer her ‘new citizenship of the foreign country’ over to her child because she has NOT gone through a process renouncing her US citizenship and declaring allegiance and gaining citizenship to the country in which she has her child- She is still a citizen of the US when she has her child-”
All of which demonstrates the monumental level of common nonsense you are spouting in complete denial of reality. At no time in a millennia of Anglo-American jurisprudence has a child born abroad ever derived English, British, or U.S. natural born citizenship by descent from a citizen mother and an alien father. It was not until well after the Cable Act of 1922 that a child born with a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father could acquire naturalized U.S. citizenship, but still could never be qualified as a natural born citizen that requires a U.S. citizen father.
“Adn the icing o nthe cake? The child assumes the citizenship of it’s citizen mother or father because citizenship is automatically passed to the child UNTIL that child reaches the ‘age of accountability’ (legally, 18) and can choose whether or not they wish to Remain a US citizen or not-”
Natural born citizens are not subject to any such requirements, but alien born children with one or two U.S. parents having a right to claim U.S. citizenship by naturalization under the authority of a U.S. Naturalization Act are subject to such restrictions on claiming naturalized U.S. citizenship.
“I realize you wish Ted wasn’t a citizen-”
That statement is false and a fraudulent misrepresentation. Ted Cruz is allegedly a naturalized citizen of the United States. I say allegedly, because the currently available evidence lacks basic documentation, such as a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) or equivalent, to support a claim of U.S. citizenship by anything other than a fraudulent claim of citizenship. Circumstantial evidence suggests his mother may or may not have expatriated her U.S. citizenship before or shortly after the birth of Ted Cruz. Assuming for the sake of discussion Ted Cruz and his parents complied with the requirements of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 to acquire naturalized citizenship in the U.S., I wish him well as a naturalized U.S. citizenship, despite his felonious efforts to subvert the U.S. Constitution and U.S. political process. While I must as a matter of principle and integrity criticize the apparent dishonest and illegal acts of Ted Cruz, I do not wish anything whatsoever for his purported citizenship one way or another; so your accusation is a misbegotten lie.
“but there is a reason the courts have not weighed in on the matter and that reason is because they understand that congress DOES have the right to define who needs naturalization and who doesn’t-”
The courts “weighed in on the matter” with respect to a child born abroad acquiring U.S. citizenship by naturalization many times more than a century ago. So, you are once again simply making wildly false assertions and claims exactly opposite of reality.
“It all boils down to two key terms “At Birth” and “By Birth” A court opinion in a case such as wong vs kim is irrelevant- it is court opinion that conflicts with many cases since and before that recognize congress’s right to declare who needs to go through a process of naturalization and who doesn’t- You may not agree with their right to do so- but recent court cases have made it clear it is their right- you can do your own research on this issue- and look up the 1401 law yourself- You can argue it isn’t law if you like, but the courts disagree with you- Even Larry Tribe- the lawyer who trump Misquoted, the lawyer who trump is deceitfully basing his sleazy attack on Ted’s citizenship, agrees Ted is a natural born citizen- and Tribe has far more experience than you or i when it comes to Natural born citizenship and the Naturalization process-”
Although I am prepared to debate Laurence Tribe myself and demonstrate how he has used many serious errors in his statements, he is quite correct in others. In particular, everyone can see and listen to the following video of a debate in which he explicitly says the exact opposite of what you have just falsely claimed he said in the above paragraph. In particular, Laurence Tribe said in the debate:
On top of that the Cruz paper conveniently ignores the classic view that Congress’s authority under the naturalization clause of our Article I encompasses only a power to provide, what I suppose today we’d call, a path to naturalized citizenship for aliens, not a power to redefine the meaning of a Presidential eligibility requirement expressly spelled out in Article II.”
Now to a genuine conservative of the sort Cruz famously claims to be when it suits his purposes, Congress has no power at all to define Constitutional terms, whether they’re terms of art like natural born citizen or ordinary language terms like liberty or the free exercise of religion. Congress has no such power, and I might add that Cruz also questions the power of the Supreme Court to define Constitutional terms in a binding way, conveniently leaving only Cruz himself, it seems, with that august power.
Source:
Is Ted Cruz Eligible to Be President?
HarvardLawSchool
Published on Feb 8, 2016
In a debate hosted by the Harvard Federalist Society on February 5, 2016, Professor Laurence Tribe argued that, under Senator Ted Cruz’s own view of the Constitution, he is not eligible to serve as President. Professor Jack Balkin of Yale Law School responded.
“If you dont’ believe me, then look up Tribe’s own words on the issue- He Never said Ted wasn’t a natural born citizen- Trump deceitfully made it appear that He did- The bottom lien is that the majority of constitutional lawyers do believe that people in Ted’s position are natural born citizens- while only a handful of lawyers ignore the laws o n the books and argue he and people like him aren’t”
As the video and the historical legal evidence demonstrate, you made false statements and perhaps outright lied insofar as you chose to deliberately and/or negligently make false statements intended to misrepresent and deceive the audience.
[[“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”]]
“That’s funny, because that court opinion flies in the face of current law-”
As demonstrated by historical events, such as the inability of such children to acquire any form of U.S. citizenship by birth or at birth during periods without naturalization of such children in the 19th Century, that U.S. Supreme Court statement and a number of preceding U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) are wholly consistent with the centuries old doctrine of only naturalizing children born abroad.
“A citizenship acquires AT BIRTH, the citizenship of their parent who is a soveriegn citizen of the us who has every right, and indeed legal obligation to, as a sovereign of the US, to pass along their citizenship to their child- The underage child is bound by law to the same nation’s laws that the parent is bound by-”
The right to acquire U.S. citizenship when born abroad was conferred by the artificial statutory legislation of Congress and not by Nature and not by Natural Law from which natural born citizenship exclusively arises. It has always been so since the English Parliament and other European governments began to naturalize alien born persons.
“Not that you’ll accept any of this I’m sure- but the courts are very clear on this issue- and pointing to a court opinion that flies in the face of many consequent cases which refute that court opinion doesn’t help your case any”
All of which is nothing more than your imagination and inventions in defiant opposition of the actual and real world written laws, case law, and other sources I have presented as independent sources anyone can consult for themselves.
“I’m not gettign into al ong drawn out argument over this- this issue has been beaten to death on FR- and like it or not, the courts have rueld that cognress does have a right and obligation to declare who needs to be naturalized and hwo doesn’t-”
As Laurence Tribe and other legal scholars on both sides of the controversy and political spectrum have accurately noted, the Congress does not have the power to define or redefine Natural Law or the meaning of natural born citizen as it was used when included in the Constitution in 1789. The Constitution granted the Congress only the power “To establish an uniform Rule of naturalization,” which does not include the power to create a natural born citizen.
“For soem excellent analysis and breakdown of the facts, please look up springfieldreformer here on FR and go through his posts on this topic- He, beign a lawyer, has doen a far better job than I could of explaining this issue in actual legal terms, and explaining why the courts have refused to take the issue up- There is a reason they haven’t”
If you are any kind of an example from which to evaluate his effectiveness, then there would be something sadly lacking. I have 52 years of experience in studying this Presidential eligibility controversy, so there are attorneys and judges who have learned from what I have been able to offer in information about this dispute. To put it mildly, you are way in over your head in arguing this issue. You would be well advised to use far more care in learning more about the assertions you are making before you end up making a lot of false statements, even if they are the false statements of facts and false conclusions you are simply redistributing from other sources.