Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
I have a question for the adherents of the most-restrictive-standard policy (born in the US of two citizen parents), aka birthers: what would it take to make you decide you’re wrong? Serious question. Based on my own readings, I think you’re wrong, and I think the lengthy postings from Mr Rogers and Jeff Winston have removed all doubt. Besides that, you’ve been promoting your arguments for 5 years now, and not a single court has agreed with you. So, what would it take? (I’m not interested in restatements of why you’re right—I’ve read all those.)
Like I said, I think you’re wrong. But I’ll allow that I could be mistaken, and I’ll tell you what would lead me to decide that: an unambiguous declaration by a court that somone was *not* an NBC or not a citizen by birth because his or her parents weren’t citizens. I don’t mean one of those “They didn’t use the words ‘natural born citizen’ so that means he wasn’t” bits of mindreading. And I don’t mean “They said X was NBC, so not-X must me not-NBC,” which is really just a misunderstanding of necessary and sufficient conditions. I mean a clear decision that put natural born, eligible for the presidency on one side of the line and a particular person, born here but with a noncitizen parent, on the other *for that reason*. As far as I’ve read in all these discussions for all these years, no court has ever come to that conclusion.
So given that it’s not likely that we’re going to be able to actually ask one of the framers what they meant in so many words, is there anything that would convince you? Because if the answer is “No, I don’t care what the courts say or have said or what legal scholars say, they’re all wrong and I’m right”—well, it’d be useful to know that that’s where you’re coming from.
-PJ
>> “what do you think should be done at this point?” <<
.
1. Jail the impersonator until his trial, remove all legislation that he has signed.
2. Zot all of the subversive foot dragging trojans like yourself that pollute this site.
“Your hypothetical was made citizen of a State under the Articles Of Confederation.”
So the Founders would have considered the foreign-born, naturalized, US citizen/British subject eligible to be president if he could get himself elected?
“All US citizens were disputed by England to be its subjects”
Not strictly true. Only those ex-British subjects who became naturalized US citizens after the 1783 Treaty of Peace were subject to impressment.
>> “As far as I’ve read in all these discussions for all these years, no court has ever come to that conclusion.” <<
.
The you haven’t read the four SCOTUS decisions that so ruled or stated.
Minor V Happersett is the key decision, since they used the two synonyms, Natural Born and Natives, exactly as De Vattel did, thus showing that it was his learned writing that was the standard of the day.
The other decisions refer back to Minor as the authority.
As usual, you are uninformed, and illogical.
They simply didn't care whether a person's parents came from another country.
I see what you did there. This is called the ole "bait and switch." Your secondary assertion is irrelevant to your first assertion. Undivided loyalty has nothing to do with where your parents are from, it has to do with whether or not another nation has a legitimate claim upon your allegiance. (And can legally compel you to fight for them.)
(William Rawle, friend and colleague of both Franklin and Washington: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.")
No one is disputing that London-trained William Rawle's opinion closely follows English law. What is in dispute is his accuracy in applying English law to American law as regards to citizenship. We fought two wars over this point.
Heck, they didn't care whether a President was a dual citizen.
(Thomas Jefferson, author of Declaration of Independence and 3rd US President, 1801-1809).
Non Sequitur. Your example is not germane to your point.
They just wanted to keep the British and other European royalty out.
Which cannot be accomplished with your interpretation. Your interpretation precludes the article from serving the purpose for which it was created.
Crash. Bang. That was the entire birther meme of "undivided loyalties," collapsing in a heap on the floor.
This is much like your interpretation. "Alleged." Nothing more.
Listen, I’m not one of your ex-husbands and I don’t owe you any child support. So, please, try to be civil.
Nothing has been debunked, troll, except your pretend status as a conservative.
BTW, what was your previous screen name?
You’re also unskilled in the art of wisecracks, having to use the poor examples of our past bunglers.
It must be embarrasing.
I am sure HH is lying about his “conservative” beliefs. I am also sure he is a re-tread. Not a scintilla of doubt about it.
That’s why I think we need to focus on the easy criticisms of Obama. Obamacare being the focal point.
Practice what you preach, dipwad.
I figured out the other day the reason the GOP is promoting all these non-NBCs as presidential material is to (a) hide their complicity in the coup and (b)continue to shut everyone up about the coup.
The official elite R leadership are traitors to the core.
The difference is that her husband was already over here - and was given land to farm off of (that’s right, given!) and to start a family.
What is it exactly that you edit?
I’m defending the Senator who is leading the charge to defund Obamacare.
Like I said, it is my first account here. Keep pushing that lie as well.
I’m convinced that you are the clown on Twitter who keeps tweeting to me that Ted Cruz’s dad is a renowned communist.
It’s incredible such a small contingent tries to bully the board. You remind me of GoP Proud.
Inaccurate trojan posts such as your own.
You remind me of a plugged toilet.
That is debatable. It likely would have ended up in court, had your hypothetical sought the Presidency. He was not an original citizen from the Revolutionary period. He was naturalized by the mechanism then extant, which was a State matter. Articles Of Confederation preceded the Constitution, which imposed the requirement, however he was naturalized as a US citizen, which was precluded.
I'd say it would have depended upon whatever claims there may have been upon him from a foreign jurisdiction and the legitimacy of them, as far as whether he would have been determined eligible or not. By legitimacy, I refer to the disputed claims of England versus, say, France, whose citizenship claims vis-a-vis US citizens would most likely not have been in dispute.
You contribute nothing to the debate. Jeff and Mr. Rogers were having a spirited debate with others regarding case law, historical documents etc. You joined the thread to call any non birther a traitor. Stick to the comment section of the Birther Report YouTube videos.
I can see that your reading comprehension is as weak on my post as it is on SCOTUS decisions. But thanks for trying.
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.