Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]

birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

[MHGinTN]

How many pages are the talking points up to now? ... Your n00b ilk are so transparent in trying to dissonance the issues. It is a fact that just because a court issues a ruling doesn’t make it constitutionally correct. Cn you agitprops get you head around that yet?

[editor-surveyor]

You pretend to believe that our courts are legitimate, in the face of John Roberts’ disgraceful performance on O-care?

[GBA]

Don't forget out Kelo. Or Roe.

No integrity, just the result they wanted, one way or another.

It's easy for us to find a work around. Human beings have a remarkable ability to justify anything they want or do.

Anything.

When it comes to humans, it's always best to make us stick to the highest standards possible. I know what we are and are capable of.

America is NOT a democracy for a reason. The FFs tried to protect us from ourselves.

[MHGinTN]

A sane person would be embarrassed to be as ver-exposed as you are now, but that is no longer relevant since we have witnessed openly your lack thereof.

[4Zoltan]

“They were subjects of England, citizens in a colony.”

So they would have referred to themselves as citizens of the Pennsylvania Colony or citizens of the Virginia Colony?

And would they also consider themselves to be natural born citizens of a particular colony?

[HawkHogan]

The basis of the birther argument is a court case, dealing with women’s inability to vote. Congratulations on refuting your own argument.

I’m on this thread because you are attacking Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in your lame attempt to invalidate Obama.

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are currently leading the charge in the Senate to defund Obamacare.

Meanwhile, you dopes are still citing the same old cases and theories that have been refuted by ACTUAL courts in this country.

Legal beagles who get all their information from the same birther blogs, then troll this board, and call everyone a GOP elite or an Obama plant.

I already detailed how I arrived at this board. I googled the story about “Campaign Sex Scandal” when Drudge was running the headline. Free Republic had a thread speculating on what the drudge headline meant.

I joined shortly afterwards.

[DiogenesLamp]

We don't like Ben Franklin's friend. We don't like George Washington's friend. So we can just tell him to kiss off.

Why you think being friends with someone makes them an expert on what someone else was thinking is beyond me. The point is not worth arguing. Rawles was not Franklin, Neither was he Washington. I can show you how much distrust Washington had of foreigners in his army by his letters.

So Jefferson lists a bunch of categories of people who all get to be citizens. Let's take out all the superfluous categories and cut to the chase:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly,

that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth...

shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed.

You didn't cut to the chase, you cut to the quick! You completely ignored the salient part.

and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth,

No need to refer to the citizenship of father and mother unless it is relevant. If it was not relevant, it would not be included. It is a long standing principle of law that no statute may be interpreted as having no purpose.

Jefferson says ALL WHITE PERSONS BORN IN VIRGINIA get to be citizens of Virginia.

This is STRAIGHT JUS SOLI. Absolutely no citizen parents required. ALL WHITE PERSONS born in Virginia are citizens.

You are blind. Apart from the fact that by quoting Jefferson's statute, you are acknowledging that individual states did indeed have the right to establish their own requirements for citizenship, (There goes your whole "born on the soil" theory. States could pass stricter requirements) you are completely overlooking the fact that "ALL WHITE PERSONS" is the ultimate Jus Sanguinus requirement. (I disagree that this should be the standard, but I acknowledge that it was in Jefferson' day.)

It was, in fact, the Jus Sanguinus requirement which clearly explains the exclusion of Slaves and Indians as citizens. Yeah, our past historical figures were blatantly racist. You might not like it, but it is the ugly truth.

He talks about James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in the William Smith case. Notice what words of Madison he doesn't boldface:

Why should I bold face them? You guys know them by heart! As far as you are concerned, Madison had nothing else to say, and if your theory was correct, he wouldn't have said anything else. The fact that he alludes to the notion that a law from South Carolina might have resolved the issue, is further proof that the general rule he references, was not the deciding factor!

He correctly mentions Lynch v Clarke as "a (state)court ruling which decides that anyone born in New York of alien parents is a citizen." Good for him. In fact, Lynch v. Clarke is absolutely devastating to his claim. Lynch v. Clarke, BY ITSELF, MURDERS his birther claim, unless he has EQUALLY STRONG evidence that says the exact opposite. Here's what Lynch v. Clarke says: "Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not."

Lynch v Clarke applied English Common law regarding New York citizenship because New York did not have a citizenship statute. This is Standard practice in absence of positive law. The state court decisions do not affect Federal law, and the opinion of a state court judge is irrelevant regarding it. The fact that the subsequent year, the New York State Legislature immediately enacted a law prohibiting exactly these people mentioned (Children of Transient Aliens) from acquiring Citizenship from New York, Stands as a rebuke to the Lynch court. Furthermore, the existence of such a statute further undermines your belief that English Common Law rules in the presence of positive law to the contrary.

The fact that the New York Legislature can pass such a law destroys your argument that the jus soli principle is inviolable.

And there's a very odd thing. That says on one of the front pages that the Commissioners of the Code were appointed on April 6, 1857. So that appears to be the date when they appointed people to write this law. And the book on it was actually published in 1859.

So you have Lynch v. Clarke, in 1844. And they responded to that... in 1857? Really? Thirteen years later?

I think you are conflating the writing of the law with the writing of a book. My understanding of the legislative process is that Legislators write laws, and pass them in the legislature. I am not familiar with a "commission" creating and enacting laws on it's own. That is the task of legislators.

My recollection is that when I found that reference, I made a great effort at the time to nail down it's date of enactment. My recollection is that it came back 1845. If I am wrong on this small point, then I'll take the hit. It is not worth arguing about because it doesn't significantly change the salient point of the argument; That a state can CHANGE requirements for citizenship. And did.

Does he have ANYTHING comparable? No, of course not. But he doesn't like Lynch v. Clarke. So we'll sweep it under the rug.

It wasn't swept under the rug, it was booted out the door by the rightful authority, the State Legislature of New York. A fact whose significance you apparently fail to comprehend.

He says, correctly, that the State of Maryland passed a law declaring the Marquis de Lafayette and all of his male descendants, forever, to be "natural born citizens" of the State of Maryland. And he says this is jus sanguinis. Well, he's right there.

But notice what they DON'T require.

Anybody here need to be a resident of the State of Maryland?

Wait a minute. I thought the purpose here was to prove that you had to be born on US soil AND have citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

The purpose is to demonstrate that States DO NOT HAVE to abide by English Common law in deciding who is a citizen of their state (Neither does the Federal government) and that they explicitly enacted a statute who's operation is exclusively by the principle of Jus Sanguinus. No Jus Soli required at all!

So even his example number 4 says: In this case, at least, ONE means of getting citizenship - in this case, jus sanguinis - is enough to make a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Not at all. The statute does not say that the Marque De Lafayette *IS* a "natural born citizen", (you really ought to read these things more closely.) It says the Marquie de Lafayette and his male heirs forever shall be "deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural born citizens of this state..." . It means that they will pretend he is. You cannot *become* a natural born citizen. You are either born one, or you are not.

So let's go for the bonus round. Finally, he brings up the Venus. Well, I don't have to shred that to little pieces. Mr Rogers has already done that for us, earlier in this thread.

I doubt it, but no one will ever know, because no one bothers to read anything Mr. Rogers writes anymore. (

So this is all the stuff that he's supposedly bringing as evidence for HIS claim. And guess what? EVERY SINGLE DAMN THING IS AGAINST HIM.

Rather, you allege such through your lack of comprehension regarding them. The rest of your response is you patting yourself on the back congratulating yourself regarding how you utterly convinced yourself that you were correct all along in your own opinion. Not worth repeating or responding.

[GBA]

I’m on this thread because you are attacking Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in your lame attempt to invalidate Obama.

No one is attacking either man. We all here are attacking stupidity and ignorance as we each see them...and we are calling you specifically on your ad hominem.

Everyone appears to be very happy with what the Senators are doing as Senators. I know I am.

I personally do NOT want them to stop doing the jobs their voters elected them to do. They are fulfilling their promises to voters. What's not to love about that??

We do not believe that either man is a NBC as we understand it. How is that an attack?

Moreover, why would you take such effective people out of the jobs they are doing so well and are so loved for it and put them into positions that will remove that support, create division among their supporters and cause voters to stay home again unless you didn't like the job they are doing and wanted them and their party to fail?

Don't believe it? Just count the posts so far...

[DiogenesLamp]

And do you know what the birther MO is?

Any time you have an argument that falls to pieces, pretend it didn’t happen. Don’t blush. Just act like it never happened.

Really? I've never seen this happen. Perhaps you can demonstrate such an event? (I sincerely doubt it.)

You are mistaking the occurrence of you proclaiming them to be nonsense, and their actually being nonsense. For you, nonsense occurs whenever someone disputes you.

And you NEVER RETRACT any of the stuff that is just total nonsense. You just save it for another day, when another audience may not know that it’s been kicked to pieces so many times you can’t even find all the pieces.

Like British Subject and London trained Rawles, opining on American citizenship in direct contradiction of Justice Washington and Justice Marshall's opinion in "the Venus."

So it’s not about the truth. It’s just a game. See how many times you can recycle the same debunked arguments. See how many more people you can fool. I have no doubt DL can do it for another 5 or 10 years.

Oh, I expect to be around for a lot longer than that. I might even drop a bombshell on you if some research I am doing turns out well.

[DiogenesLamp]

Domo for the Ping. Geez, I step out for a few, and nex thing you know, there’s a 700-post thread needs reading through.

Welcome to the party!

[DiogenesLamp]

I honestly didn’t expect I would this many replies to the thread. I’m impressed.

You lit the fuse to a long simmering combustion.

[little jeremiah]

You can make whatever claim you want.

You say that 0’s non-elgilibity is junk topic, and yet - here you are! Ignoring your own advice to attack him on the issues.

And one of the issues is his illegal usurpation of the presidency. Which, of course, you cheer.

[DiogenesLamp]

I already know he's eligible. So does Senator Cruz. It's Carl Cameron and the birthers who are wrong on this. If Senator Cruz decides to run, there won't be a court in the country standing in his way.

Geeze, I scan over the messages, find something particularly foolish, look down, and there's your name. Whoda thunk?

[RegulatorCountry]

Several colonial governments regarded their populace not as subjects but as citizens, 4Zoltan. That would be the source of the reference.

Colonial citizenship continued on from establishment of governance in these colonies through to the seventeenth century and the era of the Declaration.

As for my own source, please see: The Great Republic by the Master Historians, Volume II, Hubert H. Bankcroft, Editor, published 1902.

[Ladysforest]

First, where are you going with this?

Secondly, would they have referred to themselves as citizens of Virginia, or subjects of Virginia?

[Tau Food]

The 14th amendment says precisely "in words" who shall be a "citizen", but Chief Justice Waite explicitly states that it "DOES NOT SAY" who shall be a "natural born citizen." Ergo, one is not the same as the other.

I think if you want to avoid contradicting Chief Justice Waite, you need to revise your conclusion to read: "Ergo, one is not necessarily the same as the other."

Chief Justice Waite was very clear in stating that it was, as of 1875, unresolved as to whether the citizenship of parents was relevant to a child's status as a "natural born citizen" if the child was born in the United States. Moreover, Chief Justice Waite also made it clear that he had no intention to "solve" that issue in the case (Minor v. Happersett that he was deciding.

So, while you may think it somehow clear that a child's parent's citizenship is relevant (read "determinative") to the child's status as a "natural born citizen" as that term is used in the Constitution, Chief Justice Waite did not think that proposition was clear at all. He thought it was unresolved as of 1875 and he did not attempt to "solve" it.

What is clear is that your reliance upon Chief Justice Waite is misplaced. His opinion provides your argument with no support whatsoever.

Surely, you know that by now. If not, read his opinion.

[DiogenesLamp]

I believe that was the intent of the NBC requirement and born of citizen parents in country is the only definition that covers any and all definitions and challenges, legal or otherwise, such to grant a clear title, so to speak, of both citizenship and potential loyalty at time of birth.

I liken citizenship to adoption. Once adopted, you can pass on the family name. (I am adopted, and I passed on my adopted name, not my original name.)

No adoption? You have to stick with the name you were born with.

[HawkHogan]

Well, it will be hilarious if Ted Cruz is nominated for President, the strongest conservative we have in the Republic, and you and your fellows birthers sit at home, allowing a Natural Born Citizen (according to your definition) like Hilary Clinton or Cuomo to win election.

Actually, birthers will have no affect on the election. Like I said, it’s a fringe movement. Like Mr. Rogers pointed out, not one attorney general in any conservative state has challenged Obama’s eligibility as a NBC. And like others have pointed out, Courts in the US have already ruled on Obama’s eligibility as a NBC, and did not adopt your two parent definition.

Everyone is conspiring against you and your movement apparently. You’re the Spartan 300. Everyone is a secret agent of Obama except the glorious 300 birthers. You will survive and thrive.

[RegulatorCountry]

Here's a lengthy, pertinent excerpt from the book I mentioned in the reply immediately before yours:

A consideration of the political struggle leading to the war of independence, therefore, properly requires a preceding review of the political history of the colonies from their first settlement, since only in this way can we comprehend the preparation of the whole people for the radical change of government they were so soon to undergo, and the strong spirit of democracy which stood behind the labors of congresses and conventions and gave the cue to the work which they were to perform. In default of finding any sufficiently brief statement of this political evolution in the works of historians, the editor offers the following outline sketch, as an essential preliminary to the chapter of American history which now demands our attention.

THE several British colonies of America were formed under a variety of differing conditions. The settlement of Virginia was the work of a company of London merchants, that of New England of a body of Puritan refugees from persecution. Most of the other colonies were formed through the efforts of proprietors, to whom the king had made large grants of territory. None of them were of royal or parliamentary establishment, the nearest to this being the colony of New York, which was appropriated from its Dutch founders by the king's brother,--soon to become king himself. The government of the mother-country, therefore, took no part in the original formation of the government of the colonies, except in the somewhat flexible requirements of the charters granted to the proprietors.

Lord Baltimore was left at full liberty to establish a form of government for Maryland, William Penn for Pennsylvania, and the body of proprietors for the Carolinas, while the London Company of merchants largely used their own discretion in modeling that of Virginia. As for the government of Plymouth, it was formed without any restriction or suggestion from abroad, by a body of men who had crossed the ocean to enjoy religious liberty and who were prepared by their previous history for the duties of self-government. The Massachusetts colony was a chartered one, but from the first it took its government into its own hands, and began to exist under that same simple form of democracy which had been established by its Plymouth predecessor. In fact, a colony composed of equals, unprovided with a royal governor, and to a large extent unrestricted in its action, could scarcely assume any other than the one form of government, that of a democracy in which every man was a citizen and had a full voice in the management of affairs. There was only one restriction to this universal suffrage and self government,--that of religious orthodoxy. The colonists were Puritan sectaries, and were determined that their form of religion alone should prevail in the colony. Not only were those of heterodox views incapable of exercising full rights of citizenship, but they were soon driven from the community, as an element of discordance hostile to the well-being of this bigoted body politic. To the extent here indicated, therefore, democracy in America was first established in 1620, not in 1776. And it made considerable progress in New England and elsewhere ere it encountered any decided interference from the crown. The growth of this democratic spirit is of high interest, and is worthy of a much fuller consideration than we have space to devote to it.

The first government of New England was formed on board the Mayflower, before the landing of the Pilgrims. It was the democratic government of the Puritan church congregation transferred to the body politic, the Pilgrims choosing their governor as they chose their pastor, by the voice of the congregation. "For eighteen years all laws were enacted in a general assembly of all the colonists. The governor, chosen annually, was but president of a council, in which he had a double vote. It consisted first of one, then of five, and finally of seven members, called assistants." The colonists gradually assumed all the prerogatives of government, even the power of capital punishment. Yet so little were political honors desired that it became necessary to fine those who, being chosen, declined to act as governor or assistant.

The colony of Massachusetts Bay was organized under a charter granted by the king, but its primary management was of the same nature as that of Plymouth. In 1630 the charter and the government were transferred from England to Massachusetts, John Winthrop was chosen governor by the people, and the first General Court, or legislative assembly, was held at Boston on the 19th of October of that year. From that time until 1686 the people of New England governed themselves, under a system based on general election, all power being in the hands of the people, and the government essentially a republic. The only restriction to the right of franchise was the requirement that all citizens must be members of some church within the limits of the colony. In 1634 another important step of progress in self-government was made. Settlements were now dotted around the circumference of Massachusetts Bay, and it had become inconvenient for the citizens to exercise the duties of freemen in person. They therefore chose deputies to represent them, and the primitive form of democracy was changed to a representative one.

In the formation of the other New England colonies the same principle of government was adopted. The constitution of the Connecticut settlements, formed in 1639, paid no heed to the existence of a mother-country. The governor and legislature were to be chosen annually by the freemen, whose oath of allegiance was to the common-wealth, not to the English monarch, and the "general court" possessed the sole power of making and repealing laws. The royal charter granted by Charles II. in 1662 fully confirmed the constitution which the people had thus made for themselves. Rhode Island was chartered by the English Parliament in 1644, and formally organized its government in 1647, adopting a democracy similar to that of the other colonies, except that there was no religious restriction to the rights of citizenship, it being declared that "all men might walk as their consciences persuaded them, without molestation, every one in the name of his God." The colonies of Maine and New Hampshire became proprietary governments, under royal grants to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason. But they quickly came under the influence of the Massachusetts colony, and in 1641 New Hampshire placed itself under the protection of Massachusetts and ignored the claims of the proprietors. Its adopted form of government differed from that of Massachusetts only in the fact that neither the freemen nor the deputies of the colony were required to be church members.

In 1643 a further step of progress in the evolution of a representative republic was made. As a measure of protection against the Indians and the other dangers which threatened them, the colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Haven, and Plymouth united themselves into a confederacy, under the title of The United Colonies of New England. Rhode Island was not admitted into this confederacy, because she would not consent to be incorporated with Plymouth. New Hampshire, as we have seen, formed then a portion of the Massachusetts colony. The governing body of the confederacy consisted of an annual Assembly, composed of two deputies from each colony, which dealt with all matters relating to the common interests, while the separate interests of each colony were managed by its local government, as before.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

So this get's back to the question Ha Ha Thats Very Logical posted:
"What would it take to make you decide you’re wrong?" And the only answer I can figure out is "Nothing".

Sadly, apparently you're correct. Only one person has even addressed the question, and they revealed that they didn't understand it. The rest appear content to go with the "everybody else is wrong" approach. Why don't they just go ahead and say the Framers wrote the Constitution wrong in the first place?