It has the same intellectual content, but is far more accurate in conveying your intent. Indeed, you are a pansy a$$ed British Woman spewing British regurgitant at us.
Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
2 + 2 = 5, eh?
A NATURAL born citizen is made such by the Laws of Nature. It is inherited by blood, so the citizenship of the child follows the citizenship of the NATURAL parents. This is a citizen BY birth.
Ted Cruz is not a natural-born citizen.
Only 142 posts to get to the truth of the matter.
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
It has the same intellectual content, but is far more accurate in conveying your intent. Indeed, you are a pansy a$$ed British Woman spewing British regurgitant at us.
Cruz is smart enough to set this trap. The left can’t dig into this without allowing us to dig into Zullo’s findings. Discovery sucks for the guilty.
This is a classic example of a pre-emptive strike.
Like I said, I’d vote Ted (again) because the guy has ROLLBACK on his mind. And he knows how to do it.
Thank him? He is the most obnoxious source of wrong information that you can find on this message board! He is simply like the sheep in "Animal Farm" who constantly drone on with their inane message. "Four legs good, two legs Baaaad!"
Jeff is a cult kook. He advocates the most liberal weak interpretation of article II of which can be possibly conceived. He advocates a position that DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH the purpose for which it was intended; the exclusion of foreign influence in the executive branch of government.
Jeff is attempting to mislead anyone who will listen into accepting a weak, paradoxical and silly definition for "natural citizen." He had done nothing for which to be thanked, indeed, he is a constant disservice to us all.
Proves your point how, exactly?
Our own political expediency is not the basis upon which we should uphold our laws. It is unfortunate that these circumstances exist, because Ted Cruz might very well be a very good choice for President.
At this point, if he can secure the nomination, I would vote for him, though I am certain his candidacy violates both the spirit and the letter of the law.
Eh, slow book sales, huh?
What is to prevent the Democrats, who seem to be more favored by the courts, from going after Cruz successfully. All of our good judges know that the One is above the law and have adoped the Rule of Ridicule where he is concerned but it is doubtful if they would ignore the Constitution in favor of a Republican, particularly an effective one, in the same way.
Once again, I will point out that you are undeserving of common courtesy. You are a liar, and a troublemaker who adds nothing useful to any of these discussions. All you do is sow discord and confusion, and people are sick of looking at your repetitious false and presumptuous assertions. (crap.)
There is no evidence that she was ever married to anyone but Lolo Soetoro.
LOL ... I love it when a plan comes together.
Are you being intentionally dense? Yep, but you are a tard regardless.
Circular logic little games you tards like to play. You must be a lawyer.
I’ve stated the argument and you can’t refute it.
One last time.
Question: Why if American citizenship is IN AN OF ITSELF is the prerequisite, then why did they have to pass a NON-BINDING resolution to give McCain something he already possessed? American citizenship. Clearly, he was not like Arnold S. who is naturalized.
Anwser: Because it’s not JUST American citizenship it’s NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP
Thanks for playing.
That wasn't us, it was McStain and his people, along with the Obama people.
It does not use the words "Natural born" in the ruling. Ink and paper were not so dear that they could not have added the words if they wanted to. Like the authors of the 14th amendment, those words were INTENTIONALLY omitted.
2. It makes no mention whatsoever of the War of 1812, the focus of which was very much about the difference between an American citizen and a British Subject. It has been alleged that they intentionally omitted it because it did not support the conclusion to which they had already made up their mind.
3. The Wong court is the exact same court that ruled "separate but equal" in the Plessy v Ferguson decision a year earlier. This was one of the most infamous decisions in Supreme Court History, and the Judgement of the court was this: Not all "citizens" are created equal. Some are more equal than others.
I suspect that the Wong decision was a walkback from the Plessy decision, which provoked an outcry. They went too far in the one direction, so to compensate, they went too far in the other.
At this point, if he can secure the nomination, I would vote for him, though I am certain his candidacy violates both the spirit and the letter of the law.
So if you want to take the next step (not likely, because I suspect you are an intellectual paraplegic), let's see who proposed the resolution, who supported it, and who voted for it.
Then, when you've tied those strings together (and added some historical context--but I can only hope), you can leap-frog to your contention that this resolution regarding McCain has bearing on Cruz, or Obama for that matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.