Replies

“I tend to almost believe that the so-called “botched swearing in redo” ceremony (attended to by Chief Justice Roberts without cameras) was likely an Obama oath of citizenship ceremony which is why the SC won’t touch any “birther” claims - even the Supreme Court is complicit in the usurpation.”

Any evidence for that?

“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen”

-”Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement”. Congressional Research Service report. Federation of American Scientists.

That old tripe again?!

The link, since you didn't provide one...
@ Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement

The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, in ruling in 1875 that women did not have the constitutional right to vote in federal or state elections (as a privilege or immunity of citizenship), raised and discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that “some authorities” hold so. The Court, however, expressly declined to rule on that subject in this particular case.

Now, one has to look at the rulings (what was "held") issued in @ Minor v. Happersett (see specifically #2) and also read the following from @ LOCKWOOD, EX PARTE, 154 U.S. 116 (1894) to know that Jack Maskell is...misleading...readers with such a conclusion.

In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.

He doesn't know the difference between dicta and a ruling yet he is supposed to be informing Congress?

Sorry, try again.

“I tend to almost believe that the so-called “botched swearing in redo” ceremony (attended to by Chief Justice Roberts without cameras) was likely an Obama oath of citizenship ceremony which is why the SC won’t touch any “birther” claims - even the Supreme Court is complicit in the usurpation.” Any evidence for that? If there was, we certainly wouldn't know it

“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen”

The above is ridiculous - "by birth" and "at birth" (as used here)are two diametrically opposed phrases and cannot exist together regarding the subject.

By the above "opinion" from "legal and "historical" authorities, there would be no difference between a natural born citizen, a naturalized citizen and an illegal immigrant. A naturalized citizen has been through a PROCESS to acquire citizenship status e.g. - classes, paperwork, oaths, etc. They have been "IZED" In Rubio's case, his parents went through the process and therefore he has had, apparently, guardianship transferral of legal status. He's apparently safe from being arrested and deported and he's even eligible to be a congressman or a senator - and that's all. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand, but more importantly, why it's not enough for the the latest FReeper subgroup, the Rubio at Any Cost assembly. Why the push for Rubio?

I understand the legislative branch of our government and their push to water down and make unrecognizable the citizenship requirements for certain government bureaucrats. We all know that the agenda is an eventual, anything goes, open borders, World Government of Peaceful Coexistence - but some of us resist.