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.
For 40 years our president bragged that he was born in Kenya to a Kenya father.
It’s understandable that some people might confuse that with Natural born American citizenship. When people say they are born in foreign countries to foreign citizens, I say close enough for political work.
You cited the Constitution, but then proved you had no clue what you cited, because you thought I believed NBC = citizen, when in fact I had pointed out the difference.
So, genius, why DID they use the word “citizen” instead of grandfathering in those who had been natural born subjects?
I’m a long way from an idiot.
You, however, are an utterly self-absorbed individual who’d throw the entire country under the bus rather than admit you were wrong and that you lied to your children.
The first natural born citizen President was Martin Van Buren, born 1782, an acknowledged fact of very long standing.
George Washington was a Founder of this nation, an original citizen and our first President under the Constitution. He was born on English soil as Virginia was under the jurisdiction of England at the time. He was not magically transmogrified retroactively into a natural born citizen of the United States, as the United States wouldn’t exist for going on a half-century later.
Step away from all this emoting and rationalizing, and just listen to yourself. You’re making no logical sense whatsoever, and now you’re descending into childish name-calling.
Be an adult, just admit your mistakes and move on.
Does it bother you in the least that birthers helped bring more support to Barack Obama?
Do you care about that fact?
Or do you want to live by your misguided definition of “natural born citizen” while pretending to care about the Constitution.
You don’t care about the Constitution. You care about derailing Barack Obama. However, instead of criticizing Barack Obama for all his legitimate awfulness, you choose to focus on this ridiculous birther nonsense. Congratulations for rallying more people to support Obama.
You have done the Republic quite a service.
I remember the lesson, but I don't remember if it was a trick, extra credit question on the test or if it was in a class discussion on it, but I definitely remember the part about being born overseas being a potential dis-qualifier.
Vietnam was still on and the kids in class who had been born overseas weren't pleased.
Looking back, I didn't think the schools then were all that great, just from what the adults said at the time, but compared to now? Damn...how far have we fallen? What happened to us between then and now?
So you have stated your opinion that we could elect a citizen that speaks no English, and has citizenship in a foreign country.
Thank you for the reply. It makes perfect sense if the intention is to violate the spirit of the constitution and intention of the NBC clause.
No point debating it any further. The constitution is like a shattered pain of glass.
>> “ why DID they use the word “citizen” instead of grandfathering in those who had been natural born subjects?” <<
.
What a convoluted question.
They used the word citizen because they became citizens when the country came into existence, and thus could not be “natural born” citizens if they were created citizens.
Damn you’re stupid (and astoundingly mendacious).
“The rule as to the point of time at which the American ante nati ceased to be British subjects differs in this country and in England, as established by the courts of justice in the respective countries. The English rule is to take the date of the Treaty of Peace in 1783. Our rule is to take the date of the declaration of independence.
The settled doctrine in this country is that a person born here, but who left the country before the declaration of independence and never returned here, became an alien and incapable of taking lands subsequently by descent. The right to inherit depends upon the existing state of allegiance at the time of the descent cast.
The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is not applied by the British courts to the American ante nati, and this Court in the case of Blight’s Lessee v. Rochester, 7 Wheat. 544, adopted the same rule with respect to the rights of British subjects here. That although born before the Revolution, they are equally incapable with those born subsequent to that event of inheriting or transmitting the inheritance of lands in this country.
The British doctrine therefore is that the American ante nati, by remaining in America after the peace, lost their character of British subjects, and our doctrine is that by withdrawing from this country, and adhering to the British government, they lost, or perhaps more properly speaking, never acquired the character of American citizens.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/case.html
“The Treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between states and the inhabitants thereof.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/242/case.html
>> “Does it bother you in the least that birthers helped bring more support to Barack Obama?” <<
.
Since that absurd idea is a total falsehood, why should it bother anyone?
One such as yourself, that has dedicated your life to falsehood and destruction of a free nation is truly “misguided.”
Were they citizens by birth, or by naturalization?
And why did they not grandfather those who had been NBS, and only them, if that was their goal?
You are really incapable of understanding anything.
You post words that you do not grasp the meaning of.
Well, polling seems to support my assertion.
People are usually deterred by lunatics. Please take off your tin foil hat, put down your Guide to Misinterpreting the Constitution, and maybe stop attacking other conservatives.
>> “Were they citizens by birth, or by naturalization?” <<
.
Neither. They were citizens by the evolution of circumstance when the constitution was ratified.
“The first natural born citizen President was Martin Van Buren, born 1782, an acknowledged fact of very long standing.”
Fine. Prove it. I’m sure there were contemporaneous accounts, celebrating that we FINALLY had a NBC for President. Quote one.
Don’t give me some birther drivel written in 2008. Cite a contemporary case.
Indeed, show any case where someone who had been a NBS in the colonies was held to NOT be a NBC in the US, unless he left the country after the war.
Please take your post into the bathroom, stand before a mirror and read that to yourself.
I am not kidding.
That is some of the best advice you're going to get and giving it to you for nothing.
Keep on poll dancing moron.
You are no conservative and no American patriot. You are a judas traitor.
“They were citizens by the evolution of circumstance when the constitution was ratified.”
Really? The courts have repeatedly said that citizens are either born or naturalized. But you won’t have any trouble, I’m sure, citing a case where the courts discuss evolutionary citizenship, and how it evolved.
If they were grandfathering in NB Subjects, why did they use the generic “citizen”? Hmmm???
You are pretty good at calling others names, but you seem to have problems with citing evidence. Why is that?
You keep on giving us Traitor Drivel; what makes facts birther drivel?
I cited the constitution.
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.