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 think Mr. Rogers is actually wavering on this one.”
I believe he is too along with the Jeff Winston fellow.
I really didn't mean my post to be taken as any kind of personal attack. Just forget what I said and carry on without me.
Keep the faith! ;-)
A court would not have to define natural born citizen or weigh the factual evidence regarding Cruz’s qualifications to determine that he should be permitted to appear on the ballot so that voters and their electors can determine his eligibility.
Suppose someone who was 30 years old ran. You don’t think anyone would challenge his eligibility? Or that the courts would rule he’s eligible if the voters want him?
It is perfectly reasonable to sue to prevent someone ineligible from being listed on a ballot. You will notice that courts HAVE ruled on Obama & McCain...
A jury can render a verdict of not guilty in a case where the defendant confesses his guilt and both he and his attorney argue that the jury should find him guilty. All of our judges and the Supreme Court cannot change that verdict to guilty. Why? Because under our Constitution, the jury is the empowered to decide the guilt issue, even if they make a mistake.
Our Constitution states that the Senate shall render the verdict in the impeachment of a president. The Supreme Court would not be authorized to set aside the not guilty verdict of the Senate even if the Supreme Court believed that most of the Senators were mistaken in their view of what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.
If a president vetoes a law and states that he is doing so because he believes it to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court cannot reverse his veto, even if the Supreme Court is convinced that the president was mistaken in his opinion that the law to be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is not the only decision-maker in our system. Their job is not to ensure that no one else ever makes a mistake.
I could someday be proven wrong, but i don't think I will live to see the day when the Supreme Court intervenes to prevent a candidate from running for office because the Supreme Court believes the candidate to be unqualified.
We'll just have to wait and see, I guess, but I believe that the Constitution pretty clearly commits to the voters and their electors the job of selecting a president.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zO8OAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA148&dq=andrew+jackson+born+at+sea&hl=en&ei=a2a_TdTRGIy5twfx352sBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
“There is an …an old woman …who says she came to America in the same ship with Gen. Jackson’s parents, and that Jackson was born at sea, three days from land.” She said, “I received him in my own hands.”
And
"His father asked this question: “Gen. Jackson, where were you born?” And the answer was, “I was born at sea.”
I think that President Jackson may have received Irish citizenship through his parents. Although I'm not sure why he would not have been covered by the 1783 Treaty of Paris and lost that citizenship.
The question you ask is one of numerous scenarios. The Framers of the US Constitution would have been hard pressed to account for every single little nuance. So, they set a minimum standard that could reasonably help ensure loyalty.
Your “Person A” scenario is there because, in a nutshell, they didn’t want King George III and his wife, or another couple like him, coming over to the U.S., having a baby on U.S. soil, and then running that child for President later on just so King George, or another like him, could then reclaim the Americas.
Now, on to the “Person B” scenario:
The minimum age for a President is 35. As I have recently come to understand it, because of the minimum age set at 35, the Framers went with the 14 year residency requirement as an absolute minimum to ensure that a President had at least reached the age of accountability (21), free from parental control in choice of locations, when he had decided to stay in the United States.
Now, if you read carefully the only known quote on the Natural Born clause from one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, Charles Pinckney, you’ll see that not only does he talk about loyalty (attachment) to the United States, he also talks about the process of an Electoral College:
“They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible...”
Now, if you think about it, he’s talking about a system of checks and balances. Even though he’s using the Electoral College, combined with a mistrust of Congressmen, as a springboard for why he and the other Framers put in the requirement’s for the President, he is also tacitly admitting that, barring a failure of those Presidential requirements in ensuring loyalty to the U.S., Congress has a hand, via their electoral college votes, in also ensuring the “attachment” of the President to the country should those Presidential Requirements be ineffective in preventing an Anti-American from obtaining the Popular Vote.
Needless to say, Our system of Checks and Balances concerning the loyalty of the President has failed us due to the massive number of Progressives sitting in Congress, today.
Anyway, that’s it in a nutshell. I’m sure others will attempt to eviscerate my understanding, but I’ve got a couple of Aces up my sleeves from some books in my library, of which, the texts aren’t available online... So, be warned.
Cheers!
Citing to an earlier decision on the same issue is not dicta.
Aren’t you perhaps forgetting that Judge Malihi offered the plaintiffs a default judgment against Obama due to Obama’s attorney failing to show up at trial?
It was the plaintiffs, not the judge who rejected a default order and requested a trial on the merits, which the judge granted. “Trial on the merits” was the plaintiffs’ language.
Judge Mahili’s ruling after trial was sent to the Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp who accepted it. Kemp’s acceptance was appealed in Georgia Superior Court. They upheld it. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. They too refused to overturn Malihi and Kemp. Plaintiff Farrar asked Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to issue a Stay, Justice Thomas denied it. Plaintiff Welden petitioned the US Supreme Court to hear his appeal, the Court denied the petition.
Thanks, I do my best. And back at ya. But, when it comes to faith, I confess that I'll never get to your level of blind faith and trust...at least for anything in this physical world
Assuming you believe your deflection, I have no idea what personal attack you are referring to, fwiw, so forgive me if I have no idea what to say about that.
Your reasoning is hard enough to follow without you making stuff up.
“I think that President Jackson may have received Irish citizenship through his parents. Although I’m not sure why he would not have been covered by the 1783 Treaty of Paris and lost that citizenship.”
Wouldn’t Jackson have been covered by the A2 grandfather clause? He fought in the Revolutionary War at age 13 and was a POW.
That’s one interpretation but it seems to be believed by no one else but you.
Only a Fogblower or clone could pull the appeals history of Malihi’s ruling up so quickly, of course.
Malihi looked to the same flawed parsing of the clear NBC definition in MvH committed by the Ankeny court and also the delusional claim by the Ankeny court that the WKA court ruled that WKA was NBC. The WKA court ruling was that WKA was as much a CITIZEN as an NBC which is an unequivocal distinction between CITIZEN and NBC right there in the WKA ruling.
A state appeals court and an administrative law judge cannot reverse a SCOTUS holding.
I will stipulate that Dr. Taitz has never understood the Federal Rules of Evidence or the difference between civil and criminal law and that her appearance before Malihi was grossly incompetent.
If we can agree on that then the result that her witnesses were not properly qualified as experts before rendered any testimony about evidence they presented “not persuasive.”
There remains no federal court discovery order for Barry’s HI BC, INS/passport records, Social Security records or Selective Service Records.
BTW, what would be your explanation for why Barry has NEVER “released” his HI vital records, as in signed a legal release granting access to forensic examiners?
And why did his own attorney REFUSE to allow Barry to hold his own alleged LFBC at the big “release” to the media even when a White House reporter pointedly suggested that having Barry hold it might reduce inevitable skepticism over its authenticity?
This behavior reflects clear consciousness of guilt and/or deception to any competent investigator or observer.
You claim these opinions exist. All right, let's hear them. List them.
Jeff, you've been given these opinions. You dismiss them then demand more. Marshall and Washington's opinion of Citizen as relayed in "the VENUS" is clear and specifically invokes Vattel. You do not like this, so you pretend it doesn't exist.
I can think of ONE such opinion in early America, and it was voted down 36 to 1.
As if the truth is determined by a vote. This is the "Argumentum ad Populum" fallacy. No doubt you are talking about Dr. David Ramsey who was quite as clear and concise as was Rawle, and even in more detail.
And yet I pick 5 RANDOM claims made by Mr. Birther, and I show that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, IN A ROW, IS COMPLETE NONSENSE.
No Jeff, that is not what happened at all. You ran around your own little bush for awhile, then proclaimed yourself the winner of the race. You simply declare something as false without really demonstrating it to be false.
Here, let me show you how it works.
"Every argument that Jeff puts forth is utter nonsense! He is wasting everyone's time by repeating this crap! He is damaging the well being of our nation by supporting this false interpretation the constitution that has resulted in "Anchor Babies" and "Birth Tourism" that is completely contrary to common sense! "
"I have Demonstrated Jeff to be wrong on every salient point! I have destroyed every argument he has advanced, so everyone needs to just quit paying attention to Jeff because he has been demonstrated to be wrong TIME AND TIME Again! He has not been correct on a single point!"
Now if that sounds a little crazy, that's because it is. Assertions do not become facts just because you believe in them strongly enough.
Since all the arguments have been made, and they are all nonsense, it is time for those who respect the Constitution as it was written, not as birthers wish it was written, to stand up and say: Enough is enough. Please stop twisting the Constitution. Leave it alone.
If that comes across to you as ad hominem, I'm sorry. Again, the fact that 5 birther arguments chosen at random, were all promptly shown to be hogwash, should be a clue that it is not.
Your declarations do not the truth make. You haven't dis-proven any of my points as I demonstrated in my subsequent response to you. I think your biggest "Win" was contesting the date of the New York Political code, and i'm not even sure if you won that. It is a trivial point, which is probably why you focused on it.
ping...
No. The proposing of nonsensical scenarios and in blatant disregard to plain and sensible answers to them is what it is to be an anti-birther. As has been explained to you, American citizenship law trumps foreign citizenship law within America.
He does that all the time. That's why I usually don't bother reading what he writes. Anyone who thinks megaposting something is effective, obviously doesn't have enough common sense to be reasoned with.
With him deciding what is real and what isn't.
I have asked you whether you would answer TO EVIDENCE.
With him deciding what is "Evidence" and what isn't.
You have very strongly indicated that evidence means nothing to you. Only your OPINION matters, and if given a choice between your opinion and REALITY, you will take your personal opinion.
As does Jeff. He only objects when he thinks OTHERS are doing it.
So you have very clearly told everyone following this thread that if it is REALITY they are interested in, then they can safely ignore any and all posts by you.
Ditto for you.
“The ‘Daniels’ who defended Obama’s eligibility in Ankeny v Daniels is Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana and President George W. Bush’s Director of Management and Budget.”
On Free Republic, we tend to defend the Constitution, not political correctness, such as the GPO-e deal not to contest Barry’s eligibility in exchange for the Dems not attacking McCain not even being a citizen at birth and only being made one retroactively by an act of congress regardless of being born in or out of the zone.
I note Scalia’s recent quip from the bench chastising all the GOP senators who voted to re-authorize The Voting Rights Act even though it enshrined race-based nose-counting of voters and presumed that blacks would vote as a block for blacks. Scalia asked in so many words “Who would vote against a bill named ‘The Voting Rights Act.’”
It was clear from Scalia’s comments that he intended to rule the Act unconstitutional regardless of political correctness. “Birthers” are constitutionalists who tend to line up with Scalia. Anti-birthers have a number of different agendas, it seems.
“Wouldn’t Jackson have been covered by the A2 grandfather clause?”
Absolutely, I’m not sure if the “born at sea” claims would lead President Roosevlet to assume that President Jackson had dual citizenship. President Jackson being born in South Carolina before 1776 would have made him a British subject (or were Irish subjects treated differently?) and I don’t see how his case would be different from other early presidents. So I don’t see why President Roosevelt singled him out.
He appears to be oppose to dual citizenship but doesn’t say if in his opinion that would make Presidents Jackson and Arthur ineligible. He doesn’t seem to.
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.