Posted on 11/02/2016 9:49:34 AM PDT by drewh
A lot of grim faces on the Clinton News Network as they made the announcement last hour! totally devastating to the Clintons MSM and social justice warrior crowd
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
You have it exactly right. But we need to rid ourselves of Bushes. George P. is an utter cipher.
I’m pretty sure he said this months ago.
I always thought Jeb should stay out of the political arena, let the memories of the Bush dynasty fade a bit, then have his son run for President. He’d attract the Hispanic vote and, depending on his leanings, the conservative folks.
Deliberately misrepresenting the findings of Supreme Court cases does not an accurate argument make...nor misrepresenting the meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen at the time in which it was written - which would have been the meaning of the phrase under English Common Law as understood at the time.
Let’s try again:
Here’s some information to shed light on what you stated from another thread where these issues were discussed:
If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than George P. Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or Chester Arthur. The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a “U.S. Citizen” could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a “Vice Chancellor”) made this declaration: “Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.” In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.” This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s.
There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this, finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.
Detractors like to ignore all of information and court cases and instead rely totally on a case Minor v. Happersett - seeming to deliberately misquote the ruling - indeed, the justices specifically stated they were not making a finding of every scenario that constitutes a natural born citizen in their ruling: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ***For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.***” Minor v. Happersett - full text of ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
See post 144
It gets so annoying seeing cases cited and then misrepresented as to the findings actually written therein.
Oh, his face is so imbecilic that it’s painful to behold!
YES. Piss on the Bushes. Anyone have the drunk Bush twin hanging out with Weiner’s wife HuHu?
Prescott has not had his career yet, and wants one. At least a Governorship like his father had. The elder Bush’s can sit on their thrones of fool’s gold, and pontificate how the GOP world is supposed to be according to them. Prescott knows you have to ‘engage the enemy’ from time to time, even when that presumed ‘enemy’ is a member of your own party. Jeb! & W are still being loyal sons to GHWB, and will most likely remain loyal for as long as The Old Man remains alive.
Prescott will be eating his holiday dinner off of paper plates, using a dixie cup and a spork. He will be sitting on the carpeted floor next to the Puppy Pillows. Waterford Crystal and fine Silverware (made with real silver!) for those voting Hillary.
Explain how I "deliberately misrepresented" the Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents.
A natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is beyond dispute, not synthetic, not subject to conflicting claims, not granted by statute or by any act of a sovereign, but inheres naturally in the person according to principles that don’t depend on laws or decisions of a sovereign.
Anyone that doesn't have a clear understanding of the meaning of the term: natural born Citizen after 8 years of an illegal usurper in the white house, should read the following HERE.
Project "Let's Hope Everyone Forgets" is well under way.
Not one word of what you just said is true, and I already proved your comment re: Minor V. Happersett was blatantly false. The Court specifically said they were making no such judgment in the ruling, yet you sit here, even after the direct quote was given with a direct link to the ruling itself for verification, say just the opposite. Obviously what you are saying is false, and you have to know it because it is staring you right in the face - along with the other court rulings proving your comments to be completely false. There is no way around this. Ignoring the facts and just posting your false statements all over again that were proven to be false doesn’t make them anymore true than when you started. You should be embarrassed. Knock it off.
As you can see in plain English, the Court had no doubts about who were the natural born Citizens. The doubt was wether children born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens”.
Read that passage in Minor Vs. Happersett very carefully, and you will see that the US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:
1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class –
2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.
But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.
Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.
It was held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen – as the syllabus states in point 2 – because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. This was the independent ground that springs forth precedent. (See Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 at 84 (1996)).
George P endorsed Trump MONTHS ago.
It’s a scam. He’s got 3 real Republicans running against him. I’d vote for any of them - or either democrat - before I’d vote for another New World Order George Bush.
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.