HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Polls  Debates  Trump  Carson  Cruz  Bush  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Please keep those donations coming in, folks. Our 1st quarter FReepathon is off to a great start and we have a chance of getting 'er done early! Thank you all very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $41,755
47%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 47% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Yosemitest

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Case for Donald Trump

    02/08/2016 9:09:05 AM PST · 32 of 33
    Yosemitest to Jane Long
    WRONG !
    You keep following an UNGODLY man, and you'll bring about HELL !
    Vote for the GODLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY LEAD man !


      CRUZ or LOSE!




    "The Republican establishment has more experience electing Democrats than I do.
    They've shown they know how to do it, in presidential races. "


    What You Need To Know About Ted Cruz ( 1:46 )


    Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.

  • The Case for Donald Trump

    02/08/2016 9:05:34 AM PST · 31 of 33
    Yosemitest to Lagmeister
    Those 'Courts' are WRONG !

    Source:
      James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view,
      and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose," "public interest", or "public benefit".[5]
      The Fifth Amendment imposes limitations on the exercise of eminent domain:
        the taking must be for public use
        and just compensation must be paid.
  • The Case for Donald Trump

    02/08/2016 8:22:09 AM PST · 25 of 33
    Yosemitest to duffee
    It would be nice if those DUPED Trumpeters would WAKE UP !
  • The Case for Donald Trump

    02/08/2016 8:18:20 AM PST · 24 of 33
    Yosemitest to duffee
      "Haley Barbour strongly endorses Trump's eminent domain ... "
    That shocked me too!
    "Eminent Domain FOR PRIVATE USE" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL !
    PERIOD !
  • The Case for Donald Trump

    02/08/2016 8:13:49 AM PST · 21 of 33
    Yosemitest to Lagmeister
    Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump is CRAP !
    And those people who ACTUALLY BELIEVE the BULL CRAP that he's spouting ... are in for a shocking surprise !
  • The Case for Donald Trump

    02/08/2016 8:10:08 AM PST · 20 of 33
    Yosemitest to poinq
      " ... we have to deal sometimes ... "
    And just what 'deals' have the DemocRATS made ?
    The point is ...
      NO !
      WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE 'DEALS' !
    Next WRONG statement:
      "To stand pat
      and not get anything passed,
        is also costing us a lot of criticism.
    WHERE is it costing us?
    It hasn't cost the DemocRATS anything !
      "But businesses will abandon free market and use cronyism
        if it works better."
    Its doesn't !
    The ONLY reason they're putting up with it ... is
      BECAUSE the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" don't have the guts to fight against it.
    That is ALL the DemocRATS ARE ... is :"PAY to PLAY" CRONYISM !
    And Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump is ONE OF THEM !

    Someone once commented:
      "... show me where Cruz is going to dismantle Eminent Domain.
        Oh that's right, Cruz supports it too."
    WRONG !

    Show YOU?

    OKAY !

      Ted Cruz: President Can IGNORE Unconstitutional Supreme Court Decisions
      Thursday, 10 December 2015, by  Selwyn Duke

      Are we Americans meant to be governed by the rule of law or the rule of lawyers ?
      For a long time now we've been under the latter, with the belief that
        whatever five unelected judges on the Supreme Court say must go for 320 million citizens.
      But presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (shown) has now challenged this opinion,
      siding with no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson,
        who long ago warned that such an opinion would make our Constitution a "suicide pact."

      Cruz fired his shot across judicial supremacy's bow in a recent appearance on EWTN, a global Catholic network, while being interviewed by Princeton University professor Robert George (video below. Relevant portion begins at 13: 52).


      CANDIDATE CONVERSATIONS 2016 WITH ROBERT GEORGE - 2015-11-25 ( 52:05 )

      Asking Cruz about "judicial power," George pointed to the Supreme Court's checkered past rulings, mentioning the Dred Scott case, the 1905 case of Lochner v. New York, Roe v. Wade, and this year's Obergefell v. Hodges faux-marriage decision.
      The professor then said, as presented by Crisis magazine:

        Some people say that a president must always accept the court's interpretation of the Constitution
        no matter how dubious that interpretation is;
        that we have to treat it as the law of the land,
          binding not just on the parties to the case
          but on other officials of government, beginning with the president.
        Abraham Lincoln though, as you know, vehemently disagreed with that idea of judicial supremacy, saying that
          to treat unconstitutional court rulings as binding in all cases,
            no matter what,
            no matter how usurpative,
            no matter how anti-constitutional,
          would be for the American people - and I quote now the Great Emancipator -
            "to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

      George then asked if Lincoln was right and if Cruz would defy the court on Obergefell, to which the senator responded:

        I agree with President Lincoln
        and courts do not make law. ...
        The court interprets the law, applies the law. ...
        And, you know, this is an area of really striking divide in this presidential election. ...
        They're [sic] quite a few Republicans who, when the gay "marriage" decision came down,
          they described it as the settled law of the land.
          It's final;
          we must accept it,
          move on and surrender.

        Those are almost word for word Barack Obama's talking points
        and I think they are profoundly wrong.
        I think the decision was fundamentally illegitimate.
        It was lawless.
        It was not based on the Constitution.

        I agree very much with Justice Scalia, who wrote a powerful dissent saying, this decision is a fundamental threat to our democracy. ...
        And indeed, Justice Scalia, in the penultimate paragraph of his dissent
        , predicts, harkening back to President Lincoln defying Dred Scott,
          that state and local officials will REFUSE TO OBEY this LAWLESS decision.
        It is remarkable to see a Supreme Court justice saying that would be the consequence of this.

      In point of fact, Justice Scalia issued a stern warning to the Court in his Obergefell dissent, quoting Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 and writing,
        "The Judiciary is the 'LEAST dangerous' of the federal branches because it has
          'neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment;
          and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm'
        and the States,
          'even for the efficacy of its judgments.'
        With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them -
        with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the 'reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this Court -
          we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence."

      The reality is that
        the judiciary has no men under arms;
        it cannot enforce its rulings.
      Enforcement is the executive branch's role,
      and the Court has no ability to coerce a president into acting on its decisions.

      But isn't this just a matter of might makes right?
      Doesn't the court have the legal authority of its judicial-review power to nullify or invalidate a legislative or executive action it deems unconstitutional?
      Doesn't this give it the moral high ground?

      The Constitution is our land's supreme law, above, of course, the Supreme Court;
      this is why the Court will rule against a law citing the Constitution's authority and not merely its own.
      Yet where does the notion that the Court has judicial-review power -
      and that all three branches of government must be constrained by its judgments - come from ?

      It is not in the Constitution but was declared by the Court on, in essence, its own authority - in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.

      So the Court gave the Court its oligarchic powers.
      And "oligarchic" is not too strong a word, nor a new characterization.
      As Thomas Jefferson wrote two centuries ago,
        "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed,
        and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
      He further said that if the judicial-supremacy thesis is sound,
        "then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se" - a suicide pact.
      For judicial supremacy gives to one branch alone, continued Jefferson,
        "the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others,
          and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. ...
        The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."

      And the twisting continues apace as our Republic twists in the wind
        and we are governed by the ruler and not the rule.

      Justice Scalia made mention of this in his Obergefell dissent as well, writing,
        "It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.
        It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me.
        Today's [marriage] decree says that
          my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

      One of the basic ideas behind our American government is "balance of power," both between the feds and the states and among the three governmental branches.
      Judicial supremacy makes a mockery of this,
        confusing the Supreme Court with the Supreme Being
      and giving one branch -
        whose prominent members aren't even elected by the people
        and cannot be recalled by them -
      complete TRUMP POWER OVER the other two.
      To consider it legitimate
        is to believe
          our Founders FOUGHT ONE TYRANT living overseas
            IN THE NAME OF ESTABLISHING A TRIBUNAL OF NINE TYRANTS on our own soil.

      But they didn't, which is WHY judicial supremacy was NOT written INTO the Constitution.
      To accept it is to yield to circular reasoning:
        "The courts have the ultimate say in the meaning of law.
          And how do I know?
            The COURTS have told me so."
    " ... THAT IS FIVE UNELECTED JUDGES DECLARING THEMSELVES AS 'THE RULERS' OVER 320 MILLION AMERICANS ... "
    SO ... you can now SEE that
      TED CUZ does NOT support "EMINENT DOMAIN" FOR PRIVATE USE !
    That video from 13 minutes 50 seconds until 23 minutes 40 seconds REALLY IS WORTH YOUR TIME.
    The whole video is worth your time.
  • Guns Are Virulent Viruses: Wipe Them Out!

    02/08/2016 7:30:27 AM PST · 27 of 31
    Yosemitest to rktman
      " ... I AM sure I don't want the govt involved.
      The only thing the govt needs to do is
        stay out of my business
          as long as I'm not interfering with anyone else's rights or activities
          and I'm not involved in criminal activiy."
    That's WHY the Second Amendment was written the was it IS written !
  • The Case for Donald Trump

    02/08/2016 7:26:35 AM PST · 11 of 33
    Yosemitest to ghosthost
    Vote COINSERVATIVE, and NOT SOCIALIST !

      CRUZ or LOSE!




    "The Republican establishment has more experience electing Democrats than I do.
    They've shown they know how to do it, in presidential races. "


    What You Need To Know About Ted Cruz ( 1:46 )


    Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.

  • Guns Are Virulent Viruses: Wipe Them Out!

    02/08/2016 6:53:44 AM PST · 12 of 31
    Yosemitest to rktman

    "A traitor is everyone who does not agree with me."
    King George III



    The United States Citizens KNOW that they're going to have to fight TYRANTS in their own government.
    You can not protect life, without the ability to take life.

    While you are WAITING for the police to respond, someone could be losing their life.
    All people of a responsible age should be armed.

    As EternalVigilance reminded us:
      The Second Amendment IS Pro-Life.

      "Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these:
        First, a right to life;
        Secondly, to liberty;
        Thirdly, to property;
          together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
      These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation,
        commonly called the first law of nature...
          In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society,
          to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights;
            when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution,
            is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights;
            the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.
      If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right,
      the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation.
      The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty,
        it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift
        and voluntarily become a slave."



    Click here to read the 12 page pamphlet.


    Let us NEVER FORGET THAT !

    Let's subjugate them to OUR end game, DUST!
    "COMPROMISE" is a DIRTY word!
    People who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.


    It's time to mock the "Gun Control" Zombies!
    "Gun Control" is a firm grip, steady breathing, accurate aim (developed by lots of practice), and a slow trigger pull.


    The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
    We need to learn from the Swiss and implement their "gun control measures" here in the United States right now, today!
    These laws are the ones we should shove into the "2nd Amendment Haters" faces.
      " Today, military service for Swiss males is universal. At about age 20, every Swiss male goes through 118 consecutive days of recruit training in the Rekrutenschule. ...

      Even before required training begins, young men and women may take optional courses with the Swiss army's M57 assault rifle.
      They keep that gun at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.

      From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a "frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to continued training.
      From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr (like America's National Guard); every few years, he reports for two-week training periods.
      Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this period, he only spends 13 days total in "home guard courses."

      Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice.
      Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service.
      Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).

      By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their first equipment, clothing and arms.
      After the first training period, conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort ("in their homes") until the end of their term of service.

      Today, enlisted men are issued M57 AUTOMATIC assault rifles and officers are given pistol.
      Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use.
        (Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)

      After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation.
      Starting in the 1994, the government will GIVE ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service.

      When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to the public.

      Reservists are encouraged to buy MILITARY ammunition
        (7.5 and 5.6mm-5.56 mm in other countries-for rifles and 9 and 7.65 mm Luger for pistols)
      which is sold AT COST by the government, for target practice .
      Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo are not subsidized, but are subject to NO sales controls.
      Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as .38 Spl.) is registered at the time of sale.

      Swiss military ammo must be registered IF bought at a private store, BUT NEED NOT BE REGISTERED IF bought at a range.
      The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition.
      Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.

      The army SELLS a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons.
      Purchasers of these weapons require an EASILY OBTAINED cantonal license, and the weapons are registered.
      In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,000 FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns.
      Virtually every home has a gun.


      Besides SUBSIDIZED military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too.
      While long guns require NO special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority.
      A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.

      There are NO restrictions on the carrying of long guns.
      About half the cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other half have NO rules at all.
      There is NO discernible difference in the crime rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies.

      Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles require NO PURCHASE PERMIT and are NOT registered by the government.
      Thus, the ONLY long guns registered by the government are FULL AUTOMATICS."

    The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
    Let's adopt THEIR LAWS !

    Remember:
      The beauty of the Second Amendment is
        that it will not be needed
          until they TRY to take it.
    Read Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, IT'S ABOUT TYRANNY .
  • Would President Rubio Push Amnesty?

    02/08/2016 6:50:19 AM PST · 5 of 29
    Yosemitest to TBBT
    Of course Marco "Gang of Eight PRO-AMNESTY BILL" Rubio would !

    When it comes to Marco "AMNESTY" Rubio, CRUZ WINS hands down.

    Rubio stood with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer and supported a massive amnesty plan.
      But TED CRUZ chose to stand with others like Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people, to secure the border.
  • Cruz: Drafting Women is 'Nuts'

    02/08/2016 6:46:45 AM PST · 27 of 43
    Yosemitest to Kaslin

      CRUZ or LOSE!




    "The Republican establishment has more experience electing Democrats than I do.
    They've shown they know how to do it, in presidential races. "


    What You Need To Know About Ted Cruz ( 1:46 )


    Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.

  • The Case for Donald Trump

    02/08/2016 6:45:05 AM PST · 2 of 33
    Yosemitest to Rummyfan
    If you're backing SOCIALIST Trump for President, ponder this .

      Donald Trump and Eminent Domain, August 22nd, 2015

      ... More, Trump has publicly defended the confiscation of private property for eminent domain, even when the use for which the property is confiscated is purely private in nature:

        Trump consistently defended the use of eminent domain.
        Interviewed by John Stossel on ABC News, he said:
          "Cities have the right to condemn for the good of the city.
          Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good."
        Challenged by Stossel, he said
          that eminent domain was necessary to build schools and roads.
        But of course he just wanted to build a limousine parking lot.

      Once again, this is Donald Trump's vision of private property rights when he was just another private citizen.
      Imagine how much more damage he could do as the leader of the Federal executive branch.

    Thomas Sowell called it CORRECTLY !
      ...Trump boasts that he can make deals, among his many other boasts.
      But is a deal-maker what this country needs at this crucial time?
      Is not one of the biggest criticisms of today's Congressional Republicans
        that they have made all too many deals with Democrats,
          betraying the principles on which they ran for office?

      Bipartisan deals -- so beloved by media pundits -- have produced some of the great disasters in American history.

      Contrary to the widespread view
        that the Great Depression of the 1930s was caused by the stock market crash of 1929,
      unemployment never reached double digits in any of the 12 months that followed the stock market crash in October, 1929.

      Unemployment was 6.3 percent in June 1930 when a Democratic Congress and a Republican president made a bipartisan deal that produced the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.
      Within 6 months, unemployment hit double digits --
        and stayed in double digits throughout the entire decade of the 1930s.

      You want deals?
        There was never a more politically successful deall than that which Neville Chamberlain made in Munich in 1938.
          He was hailed as a hero, not only by his own party but even by opposition parties, when he returned with a deal that Chamberlain said meant "peace for our time."
        But, just one year later, the biggest, bloodiest and most ghastly war in history began.

      If deal-making is your standard,
        didn't Barack Obama just make a deal with Iran --
          one that may have bigger and worse consequences than Chamberlain's deal?

      What kind of deals would Donald Trump make?
        He has already praised the Supreme Court's decision in "Kelo v. City of New London" which said
          that the government can seize private property to turn it over to another private party.

      That kind of decision is good for an operator like Donald Trump.
      Doubtless other decisions that he would make as president would also be good for Donald Trump,
        even if for nobody else.
  • Ted Cruz joins the establishment [2015]

    02/06/2016 4:22:27 PM PST · 43 of 86
    Yosemitest to JoSixChip
      "The only thing cruz has accomplished in the senate was to get TPA passed. That's it, period. "
    WRONG!

    When it comes to Marco "AMNESTY" Rubio, CRUZ WINS hands down.

    Rubio stood with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer and supported a massive amnesty plan.
      But TED CRUZ chose to stand with others like Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people, to secure the border.


    Let's take a close look at what TED CRUZ said at that time about his amendment to the "Gang of Eight amnesty/ citizenship bill" :

      Cruz In 2013 On Providing Legal Status To Illegal Immigrants ( 2:14 )

      Published on Nov 12, 2015

      U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 5/21/2013:
        "And I'd like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue
        and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system
        and, in particular, about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows.
        If this amendment is adopted to the current bill, the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status.
        They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for LPR status as well so that they are out of the shadows,
        which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as THEIR principal objective to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows.
        This amendment would allow that happen, ...

        "But what it would do, is it would REMOVE the pathway to citizenship, for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,
        and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve,
        And a second point to those advocates that are so passionately engaged,
          In my view, if this committee rejects this amendment,
          and I think everyone here views that it is quite likely that this committee will indeed reject this amendment,

        In my view that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will FAIL in the House of Representatives.

        I don't want immigration reform to fail.
        I want immigration reform to pass.
        And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle,
          if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that SECURES THE BORDERS, that improves LEGAL immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows;
          then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromised to come together.
          And this amendment,
          I believe, if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically."

    The intent was TO EXPOSE the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" AND THE DemocRATS for their dishonesty.
    THEY were trying to LEGISLATE the ILLEGAL ALIENS a PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP.

    TED CRUZ was trying to amend the Bill so as TO STOP THEM,
      by REMOVING the pathway to citizenship,
      for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,

      and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve.
    They can't stop CRUZ.
    Source:
      ... Cruz even indicated he would back deporting those who came here illegally -- another proposal he has usually rebuffed.

      "I would enforce the law," Cruz said, explaining that he would first deport criminals without proper papers.
      "Federal immigration law provides that
        if someone is here illegally and is apprehended,
        that they should be sent back to their home country."

      Cruz has recently begun stressing that he believes the number of undocumented immigrants would decrease with strict border enforcement.
      ...

      "The only people I'm under fire from are reporters who want to throw rocks," Cruz said in Harlan.
      "Once we've demonstrated that we can solve the problem, then we can have a conversation about what to do about whatever people remain illegally."

      The Rubio campaign ...
      "He has attempted to muddy the waters," Cruz said on the stage. "Where there was a battle over amnesty
      and some chose, like Sen. Rubio to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer
        and support a massive amnesty plan.
      Others chose to stand with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people
        and secure the border."


    Let's get VERY CLEAR on TED CRUZ and Immigration:
      Immigration

      As the son of a Cuban immigrant, Sen. Cruz celebrates LEGAL immigration.
      He has championed measures
        to secure the border,
        reform the LEGAL immigration system,
        and uphold the rule of law.

      Americans, and particularly Texans, have witnessed the harmful effects of an unsecure border,
        endangering the lives both of citizens and those who enter illegally.
      President Obama's policies have encouraged drug smugglers, child abusers, murderers, and other dangerous criminals to traffick immigrant children into our nation under life-threatening conditions.
      In the summer of 2013 we witnessed a humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border, propelled by PROMISES OF AMNESTY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE .
      Immigrants deserve a better system in which they will be welcomed to the United States safely and with dignity.

      As a critical step to protecting families and inviting more people to enter LEGALLY, in 2014, Sen. Cruz proposed legislation TO PREVENT OBAMA FROM ILLEGALLY EXPANDING AMNESTY .
      The House acted to solve the ongoing crisis and passed bills that closely mirrored Sen. Cruz’s proposals,
        but regrettably the Senate DemocRATS REFUSED TO ALLOW A VOTE on the measures.

      In 2013, Sen. Cruz proposed amendments to the “Gang of 8”bill that would
        strengthen border security,
        expand green card opportunities,
        increase high-skilled “H1B” visas, PREVENT ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM RECEIVING WELFARE BENEFITS ,
        and enforce the rule of law.

    ALSO from On The Issues :
      Ted Cruz on Immigration

      End Obama's illegal amnesty via Congress' checks & balances
      Q: How to respond to the split within your party on immigration?
      What you're saying is
        that the Republicans should vote to fund the governments for all departments except one:
          no funding for the Department of Homeland Security,
        which handles immigration, rescinding President Obama's executive action,
        and if he vetoes that, he's responsible for shutting down the department.
      The problem is
        that's almost exactly what you did with the government shutdown across the entire government in 2013 with ObamaCare,
        and it backfired badly on your party.

      CRUZ: All across this country, Republicans campaigned, saying:
        if you elect a Republican Senate, we will stop President Obama's illegal amnesty.
      We need to HONOR WHAT WE SAID .
      We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have TO REIN IN THE ABUSE OF POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE.
        Step #1 is IF the president implements this LAWLESS AMNESTY, that THE SENATE WILL NOT CONFIRM ANY executive or judicial nominees.


      Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded

      Q: How would you rescind President Obama's executive action on immigration?

      CRUZ: We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have TO REIN IN THE ABUSE OF POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE .
        Step #1 that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce IF the president implements this LAWLESS AMNESTY, that THE SENATE WILL NOT CONFIRM ANY executive or judicial nominees,
          other than VITALl national security positions,
        for the next two years,
        UNLESS AND UNTIL the president ENDS THIS LAWLESS AMNESTY .
      That is AN EXPLICIT AUTHORITY given TO the Senate.

      Q: Are you saying the Senate should REFUSE TO CONFIRM the president's new nominee for attorney general?

      CRUZ: We have to REIN IN the executive.
      And step #2, we've got is THE POWER OF THE PURSE,
        and we should FUND ONE AT A TIME the CRITICAL PRIORITIES of the federal government,
          but ALSO USE THE POWER OF THE PURSE TO ATTACH RIDERS .


      No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas

      When discussing what to do about the 1.65 million ILLEGAL immigrants living in Texas, . . . CRUZ again said
        HE DID NOT SUPPORT A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP FOR ILLEGAL immigrants living in America, . . .

        Give police more power to ask about immigration status

        Cruz accused Dewhurst of using his position as head of the Texas Senate to KILL A BILL last year that would have given police more power to ask anyone they detain about their citizenship status--a charge Dewhurst denied.
        Both agreed that the US has FAILED TO SECURE ITS BORDER with Mexico,
        and said they OPPOSE AMNESTY for ILLEGAL immigrants and the Obama administration's new directive
          allowing many young illegal immigrants brought to the US as children to be exempted from deportation.


        Boots on the ground, plus a wall

        Border wall: James and Leppert OPPOSE A WALL,
        Dewhurst and CRUZ tout "boots on the ground" AND A WALL IN SOME PLACES .


        Triple the size of the Border Patrol

        CRUZ on immigration: Wants to TRIPLE [the]SIZE of Border Patrol.
        Says Dewhurst supported in-state tuition for kids of ILLEGAL immigrants.
        Dewhurst: I have always been against an amnesty program.
          "If they want to be a citizen, they ought to go home and reapply."
        Dewhurst says he was against tuition for children of illegal immigrants.


        Strengthen border security and increase enforcement

        Ted Cruz has worked to STRENGTHEN BORDER SECURITY and help ensure that America remains a nation of laws.
        Among other efforts, he has worked on efforts to INCREASE PENALTIES for felons WHO ENTER THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY .
        Ted authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Lopez v. Gonzales,ILLEGALLY .


  • Ted Cruz joins the establishment [2015]

    02/06/2016 3:52:47 PM PST · 19 of 86
    Yosemitest to JoSixChip
      "Cruz was always part of the establishment."
    Ah ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, he, he, he, he, ah, aheck hem - he, ho, ho, ho!
  • New York moves to stop gay conversion therapy for youths

    02/06/2016 3:04:16 PM PST · 21 of 25
    Yosemitest to Olog-hai
    It IS CHILD ABUSE to allow sex conversion of any youth !



    TO TOLERATE HOMOSEXUALS IS EVIL.
    This is what we get when we FAIL to OBEY God.
    For it is written:
      “ For whosoever shall commit ANY of these abominations,
        even the SOULS that commit them
          SHALL BE CUT OFF from among their people. ”
    Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
    These anti Christ people only bring destruction on us ALL.
    I have NO sympathy for homosexuals!

    Homosexuality is a "Mark" of disobedience.
    Someone once asked
      "Why are they [homosexuals] all so angry?"
    The answer is in the definition of "REPROBATE".
      rep·ro·bate \ˈre-prə-ˌbāt\ a. [L. reprobatus, reprobo, to disallow; re and probo, to prove.]

        1. Not enduring proof or trial; not of standard purity or fineness; disallowed; rejected.
          Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. Jer. 6.

        2. Abandoned in sin; lost to virtue or grace.
          They profess that they know God, but in works deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Titus 1.

        3. Abandoned to error, or in apostasy. 2Tim. 3.
    And the reason"why" is given in the Bible.

    God has a cure for homosexuals.
      But will we OBEY our Heavenly Father?


    "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect
    that God is just,
    that his justice cannot sleep forever."

  • Why is the natural born citizen requirement important?

    02/06/2016 12:16:03 PM PST · 102 of 102
    Yosemitest to Responsibility2nd
    WRONG!

    This disgusting Curse on our Nation named Barack Hussein Obama II, aka Barry Soetoro, has a real birth certificate, with his right footprint on it.
    All you have to do is look for it.

    The Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), ( the one guilty of TREASON ! ) has NO legitimate Social Security Number.
    His father was NOT an immigrant to the United States.
    Barack Obama Sr. was a "TRANSIENT ALIEN" because he did NOT intend on residing in the United States permanently.
    Barack Obama Sr. was a dual citizen of Great Britain and Kenya, and NEVER a United States Citizen.His mother could NOT impart U.S. citizen to her son, Barack Obama II,
    because she did NOT meet the legal requirements to do so
    ,
    at the time her son was born IN the Coast Provincial General Hospital, MOMBASA, KENYA at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961.
    Democrats knew this and tried to eliminate the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement at least 8 times BEFORE Obama won his election in 2008.

    Obama is NOT a United States Citizen, and is NOT a LEGAL IMMIGRANT.
    He has no VISA allowing him into this country.
    Barack Hussein Obama II IS ILLEGAL !
    He should be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY, tried for TREASON, SENTENCED to death,
    and then have his body deported back to Kenya.

    Barack Obama, the first black Arab-American -Kenyan pResident of the United States.


  • Why is the natural born citizen requirement important?

    02/06/2016 12:10:04 PM PST · 101 of 102
    Yosemitest to Rashputin
      "If not born on US soil, then born to two US citizen parents, clear, simple, straight forward."
    WRONG!
    Read it !


    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


    Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the in PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE OF
    Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ? ! ?
    It list the powers given to the Congress.
    The third item on the list IS the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization ... throughout the United States."
    Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ?

    Can you not READ and COMPREHEND typed writing ?

    Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
    and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !

    Have you any knowledge of WHY those changes were made ?
    Don't you realize that this changes only CLARIFY the definition given by our Founding Fathers, and do it for the good of our Country ?

    IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.
      ... What happened next ...

      The 1790 act mentioned nothing about the attitudes of new citizens toward government policy in the new democracy.
      Soon after the 1790 act was passed, however, politics became an important consideration in giving immigrants the right to vote.
      During the two terms of the nation's first president, George Washington (1732-1799; served 1789-97), two distinct political parties had begun to emerge.
        ... One party, led by Washington's successor, John Adams (1797-1801; served 1797-1801), was known as the Federalists.
          The Federalist Party included Washington, Adams, and the nation's first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755-1804).
          The Federalists supported a strong central (federal) government and were generally sympathetic to the interests of merchants in the cities.
        An opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists (also called the Democratic-Republicans), were led by the country's third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; served 1801-9).
          The Anti-Federalists opposed giving the federal government more power than was absolutely needed.

      In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law.
        The new law required immigrants to wait five years (instead of two) to become a citizen
        and to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen three years before becoming naturalized.
        An immigrant who failed to make the declaration might have to wait more than five years after arrival in the United States to become a voter.
        The 1795 law also required naturalized citizens to renounce any noble titles they might hold (such as "duke" or "countess")
        and to promise not to be loyal to any foreign king or queen.
        These measures were intended to ensure that new citizens would not secretly want to restore a king and an aristocracy, or individuals who inherit great wealth and special political privileges.

      In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
      The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
      The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
      To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
        that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
        The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
      At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
      The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
      A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

      After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
      The basic provisions of the original 1790 law were restored
      except for the period of residency before naturalization.
        The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

      The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
        In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
        In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
          that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
        Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
          especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

      Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
      They have remained political issues for more than two centuries. ...
  • Why is the natural born citizen requirement important?

    02/06/2016 12:03:40 PM PST · 100 of 102
    Yosemitest to Responsibility2nd
    As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
      The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
      and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5
      Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...
    As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:
      " ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
        that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
        and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
        that Congress considers invalid.


      Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
        that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
          meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
      Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
      He wins election in his home state.
      But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

      If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
      the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

      Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
        or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
      Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
        but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

      Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
      They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.

      In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."


    NOTE: nonjusticiable political question
      Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
      One scholar explained:
        The political question doctrine holds
          that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
          and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
          It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
          And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
            - - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
        A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
        In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
          the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
          that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
          or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
            that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
        A court can only decide issues based on law.
        The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
        If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
        When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
        The court will not engage in political disputes.

        A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
          of a non-legal character
          or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
        is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.


    Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
    What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?
      "Naturalize" !
        "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
          from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
            in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
        Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
          Related: Naturalizing.
    Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


    The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
        That any Alien being a free white person,
          who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
        may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
          wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
        and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
          he is a person of good character,
          and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
            to support the Constitution of the United States,
          which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
          and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
          and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 

        And the children of such person so naturalized,
          dwelling within the United States,
          being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
        shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

        And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
          shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
          Provided, that
            the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
          Provided also, that
            no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
              except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.


    Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
    and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


    Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
      Constitutional Topic: Citizenship


      ... Citizenship is mentioned in
      If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
      To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
      To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
      Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

      Natural-born citizen

      Who is a natural-born citizen?
      Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

      The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
        "All 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."
      But even this does not get specific enough.
      As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
      The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,


      Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
      Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

      • Anyone born inside the United States *
          * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
          This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
      • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
      • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
      • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
      • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
      • A final, historical condition:
          a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

      Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
      These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born,
      for example.

      Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asEach of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
      and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
        For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
        Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
          Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

      The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
      In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
        anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
        was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
          Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

      In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
        because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
        he was not actually qualified to be president.
      However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
      McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
        "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
        and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
      Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

      U.S. Nationals

      A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
      National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
      A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.

      U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
      U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

      (Continued)
  • Why is the natural born citizen requirement important?

    02/06/2016 12:00:17 PM PST · 99 of 102
    Yosemitest to virginia9000
    TED CRUZ is by far, the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE we've got !

      FACT: Cruz’s father’s Cuban nationality at the time of Cruz’s birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
      just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
      AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.

        What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

          The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5.
            The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
        So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law:
          When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,
            the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,
              with five of the years after the age of 14.

          ... While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,
            amendments since 1952 HAVE ELIMINATED THESE REQUIREMENTS.

        When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".
        Source

          In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
          Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

          "Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

          Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
          His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out.
          He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
          The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

          "I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

          The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 —
            48 years after leaving Cuba.
          Why did he take so long to do it?
            "I don't know. I guess laziness, or — I don't know," he says.

    So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
    AND HOW Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
    Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.
  • Ted Cruz mega-donor is a gay, pro-pot, PayPal-founding billionaire (7/3/12)

    02/03/2016 11:37:37 AM PST · 28 of 80
    Yosemitest to drewh
    So now, to attack TED CRUZ, they attack his CHRISTIAN BASE.
    They really ARE GETTING DESPERATE !
  • Ted Cruz Iowa Win Is A Loss For Evangelical Christians

    02/03/2016 11:36:52 AM PST · 24 of 43
    Yosemitest to drewh
    So now, to attack TED CRUZ, they attack his CHRISTIAN BASE.
    They really ARE GETTING DESPERATE !
  • Trump’s Lying CONFIRMED -- Political Consultant NEVER Begged Him For Job

    02/03/2016 11:31:15 AM PST · 27 of 50
    Yosemitest to combat_boots
    It angers many of us.
    We were warned of this.
    But the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF and his IRANIAN SPY, and their minions, are are proud of that accomplishment.
  • Trump’s Lying CONFIRMED -- Political Consultant NEVER Begged Him For Job

    02/03/2016 11:15:12 AM PST · 16 of 50
    Yosemitest to napscoordinator
    Someone submitted 'Your Handy, Dandy Trump Vs. Cruz Comparison Chart !' Also from ConservativeReview.com (just click on the dots for more info from the candidate's own words):

      Presidential Candidates Comparison

      Policy or Issue
      Budget, Spending & Debt


      Civil Liberties


      Education


      Energy & Environment


      Foreign Policy & Defense


      Free Market


      Health Care & Entitlements


      Immigration


      Moral Issues


      Second Amendment


      Taxes, Economy & Trade


  • Trump’s Lying CONFIRMED -- Political Consultant NEVER Begged Him For Job

    02/03/2016 11:06:00 AM PST · 7 of 50
    Yosemitest to Revelation 911
    Don;t count on Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIOVATE USE" Trump to keep his Border Security Promises, either.

      Donald Trump tells immigrant advocates "You've convinced me"

      ...Trump told the trio "You've convinced me."
      The meeting comes several weeks after Trump - one of the nation's most prominent conservative voices - delivered a key note address on immigration reform in Iowa
      and warned that that the Senate's current immigration bill "could be a death wish" for Republicans, who "need to 'do the right thing' ."



      Trump: U.S. should accept some Syrian refugees

      Donald Trump thinks the United States should accept some refugees from Syria due to the "unbelievable humanitarian problem." ...
      Trump ... said Tuesday evening that though the migrants could pose a security risk -- floating the idea that there may be individuals with ties to Islamic militants --
      he supported allowing them into America. ...



      Donald J. Trump - Verified account @realDonaldTrump

      Congress must protect our borders first.
      Amnesty should be done only if the border is secure and illegal immigration has stopped.
      11:08 AM - 29 Aug 2013
      1,055 RETWEETS 1,064 LIKES



      Message to the GOP: Trump supports amnesty

      ... On the Kelly File Thursday, Trump’s son Eric expressed frustration that the media overlooks this:
        The point isn't just deporting them, it's deporting them and letting them back in legally.
        He's been so clear about that and I know the liberal media wants to misconstrue it,
        but its deporting them and letting them back legally.
      Eric Trump is right.
      His father has been crystal clear that he wants all the illegals to return and live in America.
      Listen closely to what Trump is actually proposing.
      In an interview with CNN's Dana Bash earlier this year, Trump explained his plan this way:
        I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal ...
        A lot of these people are helping us ... and sometimes it's jobs a citizen of the United States doesn't want to do.
        I want to move 'em out, and we’re going to move 'em back in and let them be legal.



      Donald Trump's companies sought visas to import at least 1,100 workers

      ... Trump owns companies that have sought to import at least 1,100 foreign workers on temporary visas since 2000,
      according to U.S. Department of Labor data reviewed by Reuters.
      Most of the applications were approved, the data show.
      Nine companies majority-owned by Trump have sought to bring in foreign waitresses, cooks, vineyard workers and other laborers on temporary work-visa programs administered by the Labor Department.
      The candidate's foreign talent hunt included applications for an assistant golf-course superintendent, an assistant hotel manager and a banquet manager.
      Two of his companies, Trump Model Management and Trump Management Group LLC, have sought visas for nearly 250 foreign fashion models, the records show.
      Trump's presidential campaign and a lawyer for the businessman declined to comment.
      The Mar-a-Lago Club could not be reached for comment.


    .
  • The Rush Limbaugh Show, M-F, 12noon-3PM, WOR-AM, Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016.

    02/03/2016 9:45:45 AM PST · 26 of 181
    Yosemitest to LUV W
    Try http://radiosound.us/94-5-wpti/.
    It's more stable and takes up less band width .
  • In Defense of the GOP Establishment [Understanding the limitations of what they have to work with]

    02/03/2016 9:43:19 AM PST · 12 of 22
    Yosemitest to SeekAndFind
    What a FARCE !
    The ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" ARE DemocRATS IN DISQUISE !
    They FUND everything the DemocRATS WANT !

    George Will is a DemocRAT who got SO OFFENDED by the DemocRATS, that he couldn't tolerate being associated with all those "CRAZIES" .
    Now for a deeper understanding of just WHO George Will IS:
      The word "neocons" is ONLY used by LIBERALS, trying to insult Conservatives.
      The is no such thing as a "NEW" Conservative.

      Conservatives ARE Conservative, plain and simple.

      But read this"
        Liberals, Conservatives, and Neocons - - - Learn the Difference!
        March 12, 2014


        Almost everybody is confused about the word "neoconservative" and its shortened form, "neocon."
        I find that liberals/Democrats seem to use it as a sort of disrespectful form of "conservative,"
          and probably have no idea the the words have distinct meanings.
        On the other hand, I know of some conservatives who define it as "new conservatives,"
          meaning people who were formerly something else, but have converted to conservatism.
        Both are wrong.
        As near as I can tell, "neo-" doesn't apply to any other word that way -
          formerly not X, but having become X.
        No, "neo-" almost always refers to an ideology that is different from the root word in a significant way.
          Neoconfederates are not people who want to secede and become a separate country.
          They want the ideals of the Confederacy to be applied to modern politics, more or less, but not all of them.
        Neoliberal is a more vague term,
          but it specifically applies to people who may have SOME of the attributes of liberals,
          but who contradict liberalism in their advocacy of free trade and privatization
          and other ideas usually thought of as conservative.
        And, finally, neoconservatives are mostly those moderate cold war LIBERALS who defected to the Republican party when the Democrats got totally flaky with McGovern and his ilk.
        Their ultimate origin, however, is not the Democratic party but the Trotskyite movement.


        Jack Kerwick elaborates.

      Read this:
        Most "Conservatives" Are Secretly Neoconservatives
        12 March, 2014, by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.


        A colleague of mine has drawn my attention to a Washington Post blog post - "Why Most Conservatives Are Secretly Liberals" - by a Professor John Sides, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

        Sides agrees with fellow political scientists Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, co-authors of Ideology in America.
        Ellis and Stimson CONTEND that
          America is, at bottom, a "center-left nation,"
          for while "30 percent" of self-described "liberals" are consistent in endorsing "liberal" policy prescriptions,
          the same sort of consistency can be ascribed to only "15 percent" of "conservatives."
          And another "30 percent" of "conservatives" actually advance "liberal" positions.

        In short, Americans may TALK the talk of "conservatism," but they WALK the walk of "liberalism."
        That is, they favor Big Government.

        Sides, Ellis, and Stimson, it seems clear to me, are "liberals."
        It doesn't require much reading between the lines to discern this.
        That they associate "liberals," and "liberals" ALONE, with such virtues as "consistency" and such lofty ideals as "a cleaner environment" and "a stronger safety net" is enough to bear this out.
        Yet in peddling the ridiculous, patently absurd notion that
          "conservatives" see the media as PROMOTING "conservatism,"
        the verdict regarding their "liberalism" is seen for the NO-BRAINER that it is.

        There is, though, another CLUE that unveils Sides', Ellis', and Stimson's ideological PREJUDICES:
          They equate the term "liberalism" with a robust affirmation of Big Government.
          They treat "liberalism" synonymously with its modern, "Welfare-Statist" incarnation.
        There is no mention here of the fact that, originally, "liberalism" referred to
          a vision that attached supreme value to individual liberty,
          a vision in which government played, and had to play, a minimal role in the lives of its citizens.
        And there is no mention of the fact that, if "liberalism" is now "an ugly word,"
        it is because the very same socialists who made "socialism" an ugly word hijacked "liberalism" when it enjoyed a favorable reception
        and visited upon it the same fate that they secured for "socialism."

        In other words, if Sides himself wanted to be bluntly honest, he’d have to admit that "liberals" are secretly socialists.

        Still, though their premises are bogus, Sides and his colleagues draw the correct conclusion that
          most "conservatives" are NOTHING OF THE KIND.
        The truth of the matter is that
          the vast majority of contemporary "conservatives"; are neoconservatives.

        Now, "neoconservatism" is a term that hasn't the best reputation.
        It has ALWAYS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL,
        and most of its proponents have DISAVOWED IT to the point of, preposterously, condemning it as an "anti-Semitic" SLUR.
        But George W. Bush and his party inflicted potentially irrevocable damage upon the label.
        "Conservatism" is a more marketable label.

        Nevertheless, the reality is that neoconservatism is indeed a distinct school of political thought.
        Beyond this, it is fundamentally different in kind from classical conservatism.
        Irving Kristol, the so-called "Godfather" of neoconservatism, an appellation that he readily endorsed, ADMITS this in noting both
          that neoconservatism exists
          and that "conservative" "can be misleading" when used to describe it.

        Neoconservatism, you see, is THE INVENTION OF LEFTISTS like Kristol himself.
        When the Democratic Party began veering too far to the Left in the 1960s, Kristol and more moderate leftists began turning toward the Republican Party.
        So as TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM traditional conservatives, they coined the term "neoconservatism."

        Neoconservatives, Kristol asserts, are "not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state" -
          even if they reject the "vast and energetic bureaucracies" created by the Great Society.
        Neoconservatives ENDORSE "social security, unemployment insurance," and "some kind of family assistance plan," among other measures.
        But what's most interesting, particularly at a time when ObamaCare has DIVIDED the country, is that Kristol reminds us that
          neoconservatives SUPPORT "some form of national health insurance."

        In all truthfulness, however, neither a degree in political science nor an IQ above four is required to know that
          neoconservatism has always championed Big Government
          for it is its foreign policy vision more than anything else that distinguishes it from its competitors.
        For neoconservatives, America is "exceptional" in being, as Kristol puts it, "a creedal nation,"
          the only nation in all of human history to have been founded upon an "ideology" of equality, of "natural rights."
        The U.S.A., then, has a responsibility to promote this ideology throughout the world.

        And it is by way of a potentially boundless military - i.e. Big Government - that this "ideological patriotism" is to be executed.

        Had the foregoing political scientists been looking in the right places, they would BE FORCED TO CONCLUDE that most "conservatives" are secretly neoconservatives.


    So, you see that those WHO THEY CALL "neoconservatives", are really nothing more than the old moderate side of the DemocRATS.
    It's just THAT SIMPLE .
  • The Rush Limbaugh Show, M-F, 12noon-3PM, WOR-AM, Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016.

    02/03/2016 9:37:23 AM PST · 19 of 181
    Yosemitest to carriage_hill
    Rush, about Trump and Immigration and the Border:
      Take a look at these links:

        Donald Trump tells immigrant advocates "You've convinced me"

        ...Trump told the trio "You've convinced me."
        The meeting comes several weeks after Trump - one of the nation's most prominent conservative voices - delivered a key note address on immigration reform in Iowa
        and warned that that the Senate's current immigration bill "could be a death wish" for Republicans, who "need to 'do the right thing' ."



        Trump: U.S. should accept some Syrian refugees

        Donald Trump thinks the United States should accept some refugees from Syria due to the "unbelievable humanitarian problem." ...
        Trump ... said Tuesday evening that though the migrants could pose a security risk -- floating the idea that there may be individuals with ties to Islamic militants --
        he supported allowing them into America. ...



        Donald J. Trump - Verified account @realDonaldTrump

        Congress must protect our borders first.
        Amnesty should be done only if the border is secure and illegal immigration has stopped.
        11:08 AM - 29 Aug 2013
        1,055 RETWEETS 1,064 LIKES



        Message to the GOP: Trump supports amnesty

        ... On the Kelly File Thursday, Trump’s son Eric expressed frustration that the media overlooks this:
          The point isn't just deporting them, it's deporting them and letting them back in legally.
          He's been so clear about that and I know the liberal media wants to misconstrue it,
          but its deporting them and letting them back legally.
        Eric Trump is right.
        His father has been crystal clear that he wants all the illegals to return and live in America.
        Listen closely to what Trump is actually proposing.
        In an interview with CNN's Dana Bash earlier this year, Trump explained his plan this way:
          I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal ...
          A lot of these people are helping us ... and sometimes it's jobs a citizen of the United States doesn't want to do.
          I want to move 'em out, and we’re going to move 'em back in and let them be legal.



          Donald Trump's companies sought visas to import at least 1,100 workers

          ... Trump owns companies that have sought to import at least 1,100 foreign workers on temporary visas since 2000,
          according to U.S. Department of Labor data reviewed by Reuters.
          Most of the applications were approved, the data show.
          Nine companies majority-owned by Trump have sought to bring in foreign waitresses, cooks, vineyard workers and other laborers on temporary work-visa programs administered by the Labor Department.
          The candidate's foreign talent hunt included applications for an assistant golf-course superintendent, an assistant hotel manager and a banquet manager.
          Two of his companies, Trump Model Management and Trump Management Group LLC, have sought visas for nearly 250 foreign fashion models, the records show.
          Trump's presidential campaign and a lawyer for the businessman declined to comment.
          The Mar-a-Lago Club could not be reached for comment.


    That should help clarify the issue.
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 9:06:05 AM PST · 436 of 489
    Yosemitest to Ray76
    You deny the truth, so I repost it AS PROOF !

      FACT: Cruz’s father’s Cuban nationality at the time of Cruz’s birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
      just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
      AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.

        What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

          The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5.
            The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
        So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law:
          When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,
            the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,
              with five of the years after the age of 14.

          ... While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,
            amendments since 1952 HAVE ELIMINATED THESE REQUIREMENTS.

        When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".
        Source

          In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
          Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

          "Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

          Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
          His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out.
          He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
          The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

          "I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

          The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 —
            48 years after leaving Cuba.
          Why did he take so long to do it?
            "I don't know. I guess laziness, or — I don't know," he says.

    So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
    AND HOW Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
    Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 8:11:12 AM PST · 430 of 489
    Yosemitest to Ray76
    Read it again, !


    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


    Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the in PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE Of
    Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ? ! ?
    It list the powers given to the Congress.
    The third item on the list IS the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization ... throughout the United States."
    Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ?

    Can you not READ and COMPREHEND typed writing ?

    Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
    and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !

    Have you any knowledge of WHY those changes were made ?
    Don't you realize that this changes only CLARIFY the definition given by our Founding Fathers, and do it for the good of our Country ?

    IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.
      ... What happened next ...

      The 1790 act mentioned nothing about the attitudes of new citizens toward government policy in the new democracy.
      Soon after the 1790 act was passed, however, politics became an important consideration in giving immigrants the right to vote.
      During the two terms of the nation's first president, George Washington (1732-1799; served 1789-97), two distinct political parties had begun to emerge.
        ... One party, led by Washington's successor, John Adams (1797-1801; served 1797-1801), was known as the Federalists.
          The Federalist Party included Washington, Adams, and the nation's first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755-1804).
          The Federalists supported a strong central (federal) government and were generally sympathetic to the interests of merchants in the cities.
        An opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists (also called the Democratic-Republicans), were led by the country's third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; served 1801-9).
          The Anti-Federalists opposed giving the federal government more power than was absolutely needed.

      In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law.
        The new law required immigrants to wait five years (instead of two) to become a citizen
        and to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen three years before becoming naturalized.
        An immigrant who failed to make the declaration might have to wait more than five years after arrival in the United States to become a voter.
        The 1795 law also required naturalized citizens to renounce any noble titles they might hold (such as "duke" or "countess")
        and to promise not to be loyal to any foreign king or queen.
        These measures were intended to ensure that new citizens would not secretly want to restore a king and an aristocracy, or individuals who inherit great wealth and special political privileges.

      In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
      The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
      The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
      To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
        that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
        The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
      At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
      The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
      A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

      After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
      The basic provisions of the original 1790 law were restored
      except for the period of residency before naturalization.
        The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

      The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
        In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
        In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
          that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
        Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
          especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

      Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
      They have remained political issues for more than two centuries. ...
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 8:09:48 AM PST · 429 of 489
    Yosemitest to WhiskeyX
    So the TRUTH is becoming 'a nuisance" ?
    Where did I read ( ? ):

      Why do ye not understand my speech?
        Even because ye cannot hear my word.
      Ye are of your father the devil,
        and the lusts of your father
          ye will do.
      He was a murderer from the beginning,
        and abode not in the truth,
          because there is no truth in him.
      When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
        for he is a liar, and the father of it.
      And because I tell you the truth,
        ye believe me not.
      Which of you convinceth me of sin?
      And if I say the truth,
        why do ye not believe me?
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 7:57:24 AM PST · 425 of 489
    Yosemitest to Ray76
    Every time you idiots complain, give me another reason to post the truth.

    As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
      The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
      and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5
      Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...
    As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:
      " ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
        that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
        and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
        that Congress considers invalid.


      Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
        that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
          meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
      Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
      He wins election in his home state.
      But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

      If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
      the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

      Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
        or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
      Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
        but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

      Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
      They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.

      In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."


    NOTE: nonjusticiable political question
      Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
      One scholar explained:
        The political question doctrine holds
          that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
          and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
          It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
          And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
            - - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
        A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
        In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
          the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
          that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
          or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
            that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
        A court can only decide issues based on law.
        The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
        If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
        When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
        The court will not engage in political disputes.

        A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
          of a non-legal character
          or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
        is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.


    Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
    What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?
      "Naturalize" !
        "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
          from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
            in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
        Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
          Related: Naturalizing.
    Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


    The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
        That any Alien being a free white person,
          who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
        may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
          wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
        and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
          he is a person of good character,
          and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
            to support the Constitution of the United States,
          which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
          and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
          and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 

        And the children of such person so naturalized,
          dwelling within the United States,
          being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
        shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

        And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
          shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
          Provided, that
            the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
          Provided also, that
            no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
              except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.


    Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
    and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


    Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
      Constitutional Topic: Citizenship


      ... Citizenship is mentioned in
      If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
      To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
      To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
      Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

      Natural-born citizen

      Who is a natural-born citizen?
      Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

      The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
        "All 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."
      But even this does not get specific enough.
      As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
      The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,


      Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
      Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

      • Anyone born inside the United States *
          * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
          This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
      • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
      • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
      • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
      • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
      • A final, historical condition:
          a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

      Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
      These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born,
      for example.

      Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asEach of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
      and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
        For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
        Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
          Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

      The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
      In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
        anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
        was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
          Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

      In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
        because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
        he was not actually qualified to be president.
      However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
      McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
        "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
        and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
      Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

      U.S. Nationals

      A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
      National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
      A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.

      U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
      U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

      (Continued)
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 7:31:00 AM PST · 418 of 489
    Yosemitest to WhiskeyX
    At least I post LINK to verify the FACTS that I post.
    Your post are just feelings and innuendoes, with NO FACTS at all !
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 7:15:46 AM PST · 416 of 489
    Yosemitest to WhiskeyX
    Stay out of your whisky bottle.
    You've lost the ability to comprehend the Constitution and the definition our FOUNDING FATHERS gave us of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


  • HRes. 569~Condemning violence, bigotry, & hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the US (blasphemy law)

    02/03/2016 7:12:07 AM PST · 69 of 72
    Yosemitest to Arthur Wildfire! March
    There's only ONE WAY to make a Muzzl'em PEACEFUL FOREVER !
    Drown it in Pig's Blood and send it to its MAKER in a SWINE, BLOOD-FILLED COFFIN !
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 7:08:33 AM PST · 415 of 489
    Yosemitest to outofsalt
      "The Naturalization Act ... is not binding on future congress' which have the authority to change laws.
      ... In any case, naturalization is a process available to those not already deemed citizens at birth."
    There is SO MUCH that is WRONG with your statement.
    As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
      The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
      and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5
      Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...
    As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:
      " ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
        that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
        and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
        that Congress considers invalid.


      Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
        that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
          meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
      Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
      He wins election in his home state.
      But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

      If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
      the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

      Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
        or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
      Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
        but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

      Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
      They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.

      In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."


    NOTE: nonjusticiable political question
      Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
      One scholar explained:
        The political question doctrine holds
          that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
          and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
          It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
          And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
            - - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
        A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
        In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
          the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
          that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
          or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
            that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
        A court can only decide issues based on law.
        The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
        If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
        When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
        The court will not engage in political disputes.

        A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
          of a non-legal character
          or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
        is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.


    Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
    What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?
      "Naturalize" !
        "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
          from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
            in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
        Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
          Related: Naturalizing.
    Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


    The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
        That any Alien being a free white person,
          who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
        may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
          wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
        and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
          he is a person of good character,
          and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
            to support the Constitution of the United States,
          which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
          and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
          and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 

        And the children of such person so naturalized,
          dwelling within the United States,
          being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
        shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

        And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
          shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
          Provided, that
            the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
          Provided also, that
            no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
              except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.


    Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
    and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


    Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
      Constitutional Topic: Citizenship


      ... Citizenship is mentioned in
      If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
      To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
      To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
      Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

      Natural-born citizen

      Who is a natural-born citizen?
      Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

      The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
        "All 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."
      But even this does not get specific enough.
      As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
      The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,


      Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
      Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

      • Anyone born inside the United States *
          * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
          This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
      • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
      • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
      • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
      • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
      • A final, historical condition:
          a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

      Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
      These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born,
      for example.

      Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asEach of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
      and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
        For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
        Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
          Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

      The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
      In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
        anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
        was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
          Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

      In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
        because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
        he was not actually qualified to be president.
      However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
      McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
        "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
        and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
      Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

      U.S. Nationals

      A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
      National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
      A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.

      U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
      U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

      (Continued)
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 7:05:27 AM PST · 414 of 489
    Yosemitest to outofsalt
    TED CRUZ IS a Natural Born Citizen, according to dotes's LAW and the CONSTITUTION as written !

    TED CRUZ is by far, the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE we've got !

      FACT: Cruz’s father’s Cuban nationality at the time of Cruz’s birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
      just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
      AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.

        What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

          The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5.
            The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
        So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law:
          When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,
            the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,
              with five of the years after the age of 14.

          ... While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,
            amendments since 1952 HAVE ELIMINATED THESE REQUIREMENTS.

        When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".
        Source

          In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
          Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

          "Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

          Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
          His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out.
          He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
          The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

          "I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

          The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 —
            48 years after leaving Cuba.
          Why did he take so long to do it?
            "I don't know. I guess laziness, or — I don't know," he says.

    So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
    AND HOW Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
    Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

    One more thing, listen to a REAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER:
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 7:01:02 AM PST · 413 of 489
    Yosemitest to WVKayaker
    It's not TED CRUZ you FEAR !
    It's ALL THOSE BIBLE BELIEVING VOTERS !
    And so does Mr. Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump !

      Donald Trump: I brought my bible ( 1:56 )

      Published on Sep 26, 2015

      Donald Trump brought his personal copy of the Bible to the Values Voter Summit
      in an attempt to sway religious voters while he looks to shore up his sizable support among conservatives.
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 6:54:50 AM PST · 411 of 489
    Yosemitest to WhiskeyX

    WRONG, Mr Waste-of-Time!

  • Bloomberg Op-Ed Calls For An End Of Cash

    02/03/2016 6:53:40 AM PST · 174 of 174
    Yosemitest to EBH

    Yes.

  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 3:42:37 AM PST · 396 of 489
    Yosemitest to TigerClaws
      " Had Cruz's mother not gone to the Embassy and filed out the right form after he was born in Canada, would Trump be a citizen today?
      IF the answer to that is no = not a NBC."
    I think you meant Cruz instead of Trump.

    I ask someone before, "What was the first year that the FS-240 were require/issued at the time of birth?"
    Cboldt answered:

    The whole point is in the "Naturalization", or the laws defining it.
    What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?
      "Naturalize" !
        "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
          from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
            in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
        Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
          Related: Naturalizing.
    Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
    And you ARE refusing the definition of "natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !

      Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
      Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

        Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.
        ... The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president.
        Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.
    "Natural Born Citizen" was defined for the United States, BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS !

    The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
        That any Alien being a free white person,
          who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
        may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
          wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
        and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
          he is a person of good character,
          and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
            to support the Constitution of the United States,
          which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
          and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
          and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 

        And the children of such person so naturalized,
          dwelling within the United States,
          being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
        shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

        And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
          shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
          Provided, that
            the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
          Provided also, that
            no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
              except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 3:32:24 AM PST · 391 of 489
    Yosemitest to WhiskeyX
      "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said
        "A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized...." "
    Ponder THIS court Ruling about the IDIOT Apuzzo !
      Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

      Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
        as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
      Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

      But the fact is,
        they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
          in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

      And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
      In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
        who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
          he was ALSO “natural born.”

      If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
        then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


      The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
      So they in fact found
        that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

      Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
      And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

      But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
        Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
        if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.
      There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
      I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
      There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
        though.

      It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
      However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

      But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
      The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

      Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
      And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
        “This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
        and we’re done with it —
        don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

      Note that again:
        Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
      And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
      That is NOT a lot of discussion,
        which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


      The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

        “Plaintiff claims that
          President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
            Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
          and this precedent fully supports
            that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
            and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
              See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
          , 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
            916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
          Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.

      Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

    So your statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 3:28:01 AM PST · 389 of 489
    Yosemitest to outofsalt
    WRONG !
    I can be just as STUPID as you can.
      So I guess that means that
        if there are not TWINS born at the same time, they cannot be citizens ? < /sarc>

    Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
    And you ARE refusing the definition of "natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !

      Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
      Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

        Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.
        ... The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president.
        Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.


    The only definition that matters is the one GIVEN BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS.
      They addressed children of citizens,
        where one parent who was a citizen,
        and one parent who was an immigrant who had resident in the United States for a period of time,
      and the child's RIGHT to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,
        EVEN IF "born beyond Sea, or OUT of the limits of the United States, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS :
          Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have NEVER been RESIDENT IN the United States:"



    The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
        That any Alien being a free white person,
          who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
        may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
          wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
        and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
          he is a person of good character,
          and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
            to support the Constitution of the United States,
          which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
          and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
          and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 

        And the children of such person so naturalized,
          dwelling within the United States,
          being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
        shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

        And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
          shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
          Provided, that
            the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
          Provided also, that
            no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
              except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 3:26:00 AM PST · 388 of 489
    Yosemitest to Ray76
      "The issue demands immediate resolution."
    Now as far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
      The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
      and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5
      Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...
    As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:
      " ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
        that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
        and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
        that Congress considers invalid.


      Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
        that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
          meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
      Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
      He wins election in his home state.
      But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

      If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
      the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

      Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
        or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
      Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
        but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

      Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
      They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.

      In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."


    NOTE: nonjusticiable political question
      Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
      One scholar explained:
        The political question doctrine holds
          that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
          and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
          It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
          And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
            - - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
        A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
        In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
          the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
          that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
          or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
            that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
        A court can only decide issues based on law.
        The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
        If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
        When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
        The court will not engage in political disputes.

        A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
          of a non-legal character
          or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
        is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.


    Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
    What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?
      "Naturalize" !
        "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
          from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
            in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
        Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
          Related: Naturalizing.
    Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


    The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
        That any Alien being a free white person,
          who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
        may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
          wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
        and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
          he is a person of good character,
          and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
            to support the Constitution of the United States,
          which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
          and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
          and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 

        And the children of such person so naturalized,
          dwelling within the United States,
          being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
        shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

        And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
          shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
          Provided, that
            the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
          Provided also, that
            no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
              except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.


    Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
    and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


    Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
      Constitutional Topic: Citizenship


      ... Citizenship is mentioned in
      If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
      To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
      To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
      Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

      Natural-born citizen

      Who is a natural-born citizen?
      Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

      The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
        "All 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."
      But even this does not get specific enough.
      As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
      The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,


      Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
      Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

      • Anyone born inside the United States *
          * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
          This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
      • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
      • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
      • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
      • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
      • A final, historical condition:
          a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

      Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
      These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born,
      for example.

      Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asEach of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
      and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
        For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
        Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
          Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

      The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
      In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
        anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
        was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
          Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

      In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
        because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
        he was not actually qualified to be president.
      However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
      McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
        "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
        and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
      Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

      U.S. Nationals

      A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
      National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
      A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.

      U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
      U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

      (Continued)
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 3:22:16 AM PST · 386 of 489
    Yosemitest to No Dems 2016
      "Your problem is that there are just as many opposite findings and interpretations on this.
      It's a controversy and needs to be resolved."
    WRONG !

    It was Settled in 1790 and AGAIN in 1802!

      In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
      The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
      The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
      To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
        that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
        The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
      At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
      The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
      A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

      After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
      The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
        The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.
      The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
        In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
        In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
          that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
        Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
          especially Asian countries, font size="+2">but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

      Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
      They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

      Did you know ...

        Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
        Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
          - by getting married!
          In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
            if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
          In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
            this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.
    Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


    So READ THE LATEST FROM the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. And what's YOUR source, some COMMUNIST COLLEGE PROFESSOR ? READ IT AGAIN, KNOT-HEAD !
      Constitutional Topic: Citizenship


      ... Citizenship is mentioned in
      If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
      To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
      To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
      Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

      Natural-born citizen

      Who is a natural-born citizen?
      Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

      The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
        "All 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."
      But even this does not get specific enough.
      As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
      The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,


      Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
      Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

      • Anyone born inside the United States *
          * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
          This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
      • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
      • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
      • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
      • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
      • A final, historical condition:
          a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

      Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
      These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born,
      for example.

      Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asEach of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
      and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
        For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
        Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
          Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

      The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
      In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
        anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
        was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
          Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

      In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
        because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
        he was not actually qualified to be president.
      However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
      McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
        "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
        and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
      Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

      U.S. Nationals

      A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
      National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
      A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.

      U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
      U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

      (Continued
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 3:18:03 AM PST · 385 of 489
    Yosemitest to Mollypitcher1
      In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
      The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
      The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
      To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
        that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
        The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
      At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
      The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
      A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

      After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
      The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
        The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.
      The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
        In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
        In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
          that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
        Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
          especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

      Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
      They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

      Did you know ...

        Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
        Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
          - by getting married!
          In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
            if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
          In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
            this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.
    Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 3:15:39 AM PST · 383 of 489
    Yosemitest to Just mythoughts
    You have NO UNDERSTANDING of the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived !
    You have no comprehension of the laws defining it.
    What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?
      "Naturalize" !
        "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
          from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
            in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
        Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
          Related: Naturalizing.
    Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
    And you ARE refusing the definition of "natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !

      Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
      Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

    It was defined for the United States, BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS !

    The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
        That any Alien being a free white person,
          who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
        may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
          wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
        and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
          he is a person of good character,
          and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
            to support the Constitution of the United States,
          which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
          and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
          and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 

        And the children of such person so naturalized,
          dwelling within the United States,
          being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
        shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

        And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
          shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
          Provided, that
            the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
          Provided also, that
            no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
              except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 3:14:28 AM PST · 382 of 489
    Yosemitest to Lurkinanloomin
    REFERENCE:
      "I had a friend when I was a kid who was born in Germany (his dad was USAF)
      and he also knew he was not a natural born citizen."
    Now as far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
      The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
      and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5
      Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...
    As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:
      " ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
        that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
        and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
        that Congress considers invalid.


      Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
        that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
          meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
      Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
      He wins election in his home state.
      But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

      If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
      the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

      Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
        or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
      Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
        but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

      Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
      They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.

      In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."


    NOTE: nonjusticiable political question
      Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
      One scholar explained:
        The political question doctrine holds
          that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
          and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
          It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
          And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
            - - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
        A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
        In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,
          the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
          that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
          or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
            that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
        A court can only decide issues based on law.
        The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
        If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
        When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
        The court will not engage in political disputes.

        A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
          of a non-legal character
          or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
        is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.


    Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
    What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?
      "Naturalize" !
        "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
          from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
            in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
        Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
          Related: Naturalizing.
    Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


    The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
        That any Alien being a free white person,
          who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
        may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
          wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
        and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
          he is a person of good character,
          and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
            to support the Constitution of the United States,
          which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
          and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
          and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 

        And the children of such person so naturalized,
          dwelling within the United States,
          being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
        shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

        And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
          shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
          Provided, that
            the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
          Provided also, that
            no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
              except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.


    Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
    and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



    1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


    Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
      Constitutional Topic: Citizenship


      ... Citizenship is mentioned in
      If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
      To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
      To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
      Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

      Natural-born citizen

      Who is a natural-born citizen?
      Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

      The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
        "All 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."
      But even this does not get specific enough.
      As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
      The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,


      Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
      Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

      • Anyone born inside the United States *
          * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
          This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
      • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
      • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
      • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
      • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
      • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
      • A final, historical condition:
          a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

      Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
      These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born,
      for example.

      Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asEach of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
      and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
        For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
        Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
          Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

      The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
      In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
        anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
        was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
          Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

      In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
        because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
        he was not actually qualified to be president.
      However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
      McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
        "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
        and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
      Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

      U.S. Nationals

      A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
      National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
      A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.

      U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
      U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

      (Continued)
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 3:03:09 AM PST · 381 of 489
    Yosemitest to Just mythoughts
    You have no LAW on your side of the argument.
    You only have innuendo, and insinuation.

    Another article well worth anyone's time is
      On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen",
      MAR 11, 2015, Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement

      ... While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape,
      at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15× Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a "natural born Citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution.
      Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a "natural born Citizen" even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
      Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.16× Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President,
      wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain's birth.17×
        17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).
      Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain's candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord.
      The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency,
        resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was "inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the 'natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States,
        as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term 'natural born Citizen.' "18×
          18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).
      And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state.
      Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party's presidential nominee in 1964,19× and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.20×
      There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle.
      The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.
      Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues.
      To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a "natural born Citizen."
      Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve.
      But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization.
      And the phrase "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.
      Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent - - whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone - - is a U.S. citizen from birth
      and is fully eligible to serve as President
      if the people so choose.




      * Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University.
      ** Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University; Partner, Bancroft PLLC.

    And incase you forgot, or intentionally left it out:


      1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


      As Hans von Spakovsky wrote in his Commentary "An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":
        ... The Constitution, federal law, and the historical understanding of the Framers, as well as prior British legal traditions and law, all support this view.
        In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, two former U.S. Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement (who served under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (who served under President Barack Obama) stated:

          All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning:
            namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth
            with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
          And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that,
            subject to certain residency requirements on the parents,
          someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

        Thus, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be eligible to run for president
          because the Austrian native had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.

        Certainly the Framers of the Constitution held this view of “natural born” citizen.
        They had a deep understanding of British common law and applied its precepts, particularly as explained in Blackstone’s Commentaries, throughout the Constitution.
        The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama (1888) recognized that
          “the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that
            its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law,
            and are to be read in the light of its history.”

        Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States
        if the American people make that choice.

        One of those precepts of British law was
          that children born to British citizens anywhere in the world,
            even outside the dominions of the British Empire,
          were “natural born” citizens of the Empire
          who owed their allegiance to the Crown.
        This historical understanding is explained in great detail by the Supreme Court in a well-known 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

        The First Congress, which included many of the Framers of the Constitution, codified this view of a natural born citizen.
        A mere three years after the Constitution was drafted, they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790,
        which specified that the children of U.S. citizens born
          “out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
        The modern version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401.
        It contains a list of all individuals who are considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
        Paragraph (g) includes:

          A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien,
          and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions
          for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,
            at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. 

        Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970;
        his mother, who was a U.S. citizen by birth from Delaware, was in her 30s at the time.
        She met Cruz’s father, who was born in Cuba, as a student at Rice University.
        These facts show that
          Cruz’s family background clearly meets the standard set out in the federal statute for being a natural born citizen who did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen.;
        That was also the case for Senator Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state,
        and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico.

        The bottom line is that Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice.
        The same is true of my wife, who was born in Manila.
          Her father, whose family had been in America since shortly after the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts,
          was temporarily working abroad for an American company—just like Ted Cruz’s father.

        My wife is not likely to run for president,
        but there is no question that she—like Ted Cruz, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain—is eligible to be president
        and to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”


    The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it , too !

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
        That any Alien being a free white person,
          who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
        may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
          wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
        and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
          he is a person of good character,
          and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
            to support the Constitution of the United States,
          which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
          and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
          and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 

        And the children of such person so naturalized,
          dwelling within the United States,
          being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
        shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

        And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
          shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
          Provided, that
            the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
          Provided also, that
            no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
              except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/03/2016 2:54:43 AM PST · 379 of 489
    Yosemitest to bushpilot2
    I ask someone before, "What was the first year that the FS-240 were require/issued at the time of birth?"
    Cboldt answered:

  • Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

    02/02/2016 5:23:21 PM PST · 98 of 489
    Yosemitest to diamond6
    I hope you're not inferring that I support the SOCIALIST Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump.

      CRUZ or LOSE!




    "The Republican establishment has more experience electing Democrats than I do.
    They've shown they know how to do it, in presidential races. "


    What You Need To Know About Ted Cruz ( 1:46 )


    Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.