Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

The Ridgewood Blog ^ | August 27, 2013 | PJBlogger

[DiogenesLamp]

You could not be more wrong.

I get that a lot. The vast majority of the time, I turn out to be exactly right.

Citizenship in a soverign nation is conferred upon a person based solely on the laws of that nation.

Really? What law created the American citizens? According to Nero Germanicus it appears to have been 8 U.S.C. § 1401, but I sort of think we existed as citizens before that law was created.

There is no natural law entitlement to Citizenship.

It is truly a shame that the Founders descendants have become so disconnected from the principles that created this nation.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Constitution confers upon Congress the right and duty to dictate the qualifications for both Citizenship at the moment of birth and citizenship granted after birth.

The Constitution confers upon Congress the right to NATURALIZE non-natural citizens. Natural Citizens are not created by acts of Congress, but by descent through Existing citizens.

[xzins]

You could not be more wrong. Citizenship in a soverign nation is conferred upon a person based solely on the laws of that nation

I could make a case for restricting citizenship to those who work or those who own property or those who have served in the military.

All I have to do is get Congress to go along with me. Haha. Seriously, though, those who determine the laws of the land determine citizenship.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

“I guess what you’re saying is that if Iran were, without request, to confer Iranian citizenship on Jeb Bush, he’d be ineligible to be president because he would be “dual citizen.” “

C’mon Tau, now you’re just playing with me. Or, you’re just being intellectually dishonest. I don’t know you well enough to tell which, yet. That is not the discussion here as I’m pretty sure you know, never has been and never will be. What we’re talking about is not that “Iran confers Iranian Citizenship without request making someone a dual citizen.” It’s ludicrous on it’s face and no one would ever consider it for more than the time it takes to read it.

The discussion point is (using your scenario) that Jeb Bush would be born with dual citizenship, Iranian - US, if his mother (or father) was an Iranian citizen (not a US Citizen) at Jeb’s birth. Jeb would, by law, owe allegiance to Iran at birth, just as he would owe allegiance to the US (assuming the other parent was a US citizen), with the option to renounce either citizenship when he reached the age of majority.

I can’t figure out why it’s so hard to understand that if a US mother could confer US citizenship on her child upon his/her/its (to be politically correct) birth, that an Iranian (or any other nationality) mother (or father) would not also confer Iranian (or any other nationality) citizenship upon their child’s birth - making both children dual citizens with dual allegiances. The very thing the Founders were trying to avoid.

“...I believe that natural born citizen = citizen at birth.”
So, if that’s the case, why did the Founders include the word “natural”? Why not “native”? Or, why not “citizen at birth?”

“But, there isn’t anything about the text or history of the natural born citizen clause that compels such a conclusion.”

I disagree with your assertion. If there was no definition of “natural born” that the Founders understood, or if it was defined as just “citizen at birth”, what’s the point of using the term? To use your words from another post, why would the Founders try to confuse “ordinary citizens” if they just meant citizen at birth?

[P-Marlowe]

These arrogant @$$e$ seem to think that if someone they think is not an NBC ever became president that the very foundations of our Republic would crumble under the weight of the resultant Constitutional Crisis.

It would be funny if it weren't happening on this forum.

[P-Marlowe]

It is truly a shame that the Founders descendants have become so disconnected from the principles that created this nation.

The founders themselves never lived up to those principles. Natural Law rights were never considered to have been conferred on slaves or Indians.

Citizenship is a discretionary right conferred by sovereign nations by statutory laws. It is not a right conferred merely because of your place of birth. If is only conferred by acts of the sovereign nations that Grant Citizenship to whomever they so please.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

“These arrogant @$$e$ seem to think that if someone they think is not an NBC ever became president that the very foundations of our Republic would crumble under the weight of the resultant Constitutional Crisis.”

So, I’m guessing that you believe that 0bama, (allegedly) the son of a British subject, is a natural born US citizen, and that our Republic is doing just fine.

[DiogenesLamp]

Asserting that you've "caught me lying" doesn't make it true.

Sure it does. We're using JEFF LOGIC here. You always assert that ALL AUTHORITIES IN HISTORY AGREE WITH YOU, and you keep posting that wall of text and CLAIMING they are all authorities, and CLAIMING that they all agree with you, so there isn't really a very heavy standard for proving stuff according to your methodology.

In order to show that I've been "caught lying," you need to actually prove that I said things that weren't true. And really, you need to prove that any such misstatement was deliberate and not simply an error.

No problem. We'll just go with your LATEST lie.

Here is your original INCORRECT assertion. You weren't lying at this point, you were just wrong.

This is where you clarified the original incorrect assertion. (Thomas Jefferson et al were French Citizens.)It wasn't a lie yet, you were just misinformed.

Here it still wasn't a lie yet, you had been misled by Nathan Dane.

This is where you were shown that it was incorrect

And this is where you turned it into a lie

And this is where you repeated the lie. (Thomas Jefferson is a French Citizen.)

And here's where you repeated it again.

Here's where another person notices you are lying.

Here you repeat the lie again.

Another person notices you are lying.

You repeat the lie once again.

ANOTHER person notices you are lying.

Once more you Reassert the lie.

Again, you assert that Jefferson is a Citizen of France.

You Repeat the lie IN BIG RED LETTERS

And you once more defy all evidence, and again assert that THOMAS JEFFERSON IS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF FRANCE.

That has been shown to be a lie. You kept repeating it anyway. You ended the thread by repeating it. I don't doubt you may still repeat it, but it is still a lie because it has been demonstrated to be UNTRUE.

And this is just one example. Had I chosen a different topic, I would have had so many examples that it would have taken me days of back checking to find and mark all the occasions when you have repeated a known lie.

Your deliberate attempts to cut out Bingham's words where he explains his meaning about confining citizenship to those children born to people who hold NO FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE is another one of your well known lying episodes. Fortunately for you, i'm not going to backtrack all the examples where I caught you deliberately lying about Bingham's position. I may save that for a future date.

I've been thinking about compiling "Jeff's Greatest Lying hits!" complete with links and all (as in the example above) but It will have to wait for when I have more time, or more motivation to point out HOW OFTEN YOU DELIBERATELY LIE.

At the moment I have no more time to waste debunking your habit of lying.

[Uncle Sham]

You’re wasting your time trying to debate this issue with those who are determined to cloud it with obfuscation and deceit. The Twentieth Amendment, Section Three solves this problem and tells us exactly what we are dealing with. It proves we have a usurper in the White House and that our entire Congress is complicit with this having taken place. They did not uphold their oaths of office to support the Constitution by ignoring their instructions in Section Three. This is a fact that the “natural born citizen deceivers” are unwilling to debate. It is exactly where this topic should be addressed if we are going to solve this problem.

[DiogenesLamp]

After the first few court cases turned out as I expected, I have since regarded this topic as completely academic.

"Precedent" and Repetition hold too firm of a grip upon the legal system and those others among us who possess simple minds.

We are in decline.

[DiogenesLamp]

I could make a case for restricting citizenship to those who work or those who own property or those who have served in the military.

All I have to do is get Congress to go along with me. Haha. Seriously, though, those who determine the laws of the land determine citizenship.

And yet you cannot see how such an arbitrary acquisition of citizenship isn't the same as natural citizenship? Your position renders the term infinitely flexible. My understanding of the term is rigid and unmalleable.

It reflects my view of Constitutional laws. Rigid and Unmalleable. Not "Living" and with constantly changing meanings.

In that respect, my view parallels those of Jefferson.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

[DiogenesLamp]

The founders themselves never lived up to those principles. Natural Law rights were never considered to have been conferred on slaves or Indians.

Don't know how much you know of history, but from MY reading of it, including those words in the Declaration of independence inspired states to Abolish Slavery. Many of them used that exact justification stated in the Declaration of Independence as the legal basis for freeing slaves.

Court Cases brought on this basis were Successful in Massachusetts and some other states. The Abolition movement flourished as an awakening swept across the nation, and eventually culminated in the successful Abolition of Slavery. People recognized inherently that it was a violation of natural law. It just took them awhile.

Even Washington eventually freed his slaves, and accepted the principle that it was wrong. It took him awhile too. The founders merely spoke truth before they fully understood it.

Citizenship is a discretionary right conferred by sovereign nations by statutory laws. It is not a right conferred merely because of your place of birth. If is only conferred by acts of the sovereign nations that Grant Citizenship to whomever they so please.

But the specific meaning of "natural citizenship" is that which is conveyed through no laws because it is not granted by human law. John Jay and George Washington obviously understood it to be a protection against foreign influence in the Executive branch because that was their explicitly stated purpose for including it.

[Uncle Sham]

"If they certify the election, then that is the end of the discussion."

Not quite.

Congress certifying the election results in the official naming of a President-Elect. Before the certification occurs, we really do not know "who" this will be. Once there is an official "President Elect", Congress is instructed to enforce the provisions of the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three which means that they, Congress must name a replacement if the President Elect dies before taking office OR if the "President Elect" shall have failed to qualify".

This places the burden of "qualifying" upon the President Elect and upon Congress to know whether or not to name a replacement if this "qualification" did not occur.

There is only one thing left in the Constitution dealing with "qualifications" as it applies to a President Elect and they happen to be the eligibility requirements in Article Two. If a President Elect is unable to provide proof of eligibility to Congress, he/she has failed to qualify and Congress is charged with naming a replacement.

We KNOW there was never a qualification because no one in Congress is willing to testify as to what was presented to them as proof. Whether or not there was a failure to qualify due to lack of proof or due to Congress ignoring it's duty to enforce Section Three, the result is the same thing, a failure to qualify.

Someone who fails to qualify cannot be President according to the eligibility requirements themselves as the first two words of these requirements are "NO PERSON". This does not allow for someone who sneaks in because they forged documents or because Congress didn't do their job. We have a usurper. period.

Obama's own legal team agrees that the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three gives Congress the duty of enforcing the eligibility requirements and have said so in court.

[P-Marlowe]

But the specific meaning of "natural citizenship" is that which is conveyed through no laws because it is not granted by human law

If that is true then all men born on this planet are Natural Born Citizens. If Citizenship is a right Granted by God, then it is not within the purview of any body to determine that anyone is not a Natural Born Citizen. All men are thus endowed by their creator with said Citizenship.

I can't believe the vapid arguments that you anti Cruz people will come up with to try to undermine his potential candidacy.

But clearly using your logic, only God has the power to determine if Cruz is eligible. So why are you trying to play God?

[Kenny Bunk]

The only body that is Constitutionally delegated to determine the eligibility of the President under any Clause in the Constitution is Congress.

....and The SCOTUS is constitutionally delegated to interpret the Constitution. One of us has this wrong.
I simply would like the SCOTUS to tell us which one.

[Uncle Sham]

Kenny, The Twentieth Amendment, Section Three places this responsibility upon Congress.

[P-Marlowe]

....and The SCOTUS is constitutionally delegated to interpret the Constitution

Baloney. This was a power usurped by the Marshall Court and said power was not delegated in the Constitution nor was it envisioned by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

I simply would like the SCOTUS to tell us which one

Right. The same court that brought us Roe v Wade?

I trust Congress to uphold the Constitution more than the unelected and unaccountable old farts on the Supreme Court.

[Jeff Winston]

I think some of the folks here are just mentally diseased.

I couldn't agree more. One or two in particular.

[Jeff Winston]

Dane said clearly that Thomas Jefferson had been naturalized and made a French citizen. That was Dane’s opinion, and his reading of the laws.

There’s no denying that, because it’s in black and white.

Unless, of course, you’re an idiot birther.

If you’re an idiot birther, it’s a “lie,” and anyone who points it out is a “liar.”

[Tau Food]

The point I'm trying to make is that I do not believe that the pool of candidates from which we choose our presidents should not be influenced or manipulated by choices that foreign governments make. Thus, if a child is born on foreign soil to an American mother and is thus an American citizen at birth, his eligibility to someday serve as our president should not be made to depend upon whether the government of that foreign country chooses or to extend citizenship to the child or chooses not to extend citizenship to the child. I believe that how the government of that foreign country chooses to view the child is irrelevant.

Any loyalties that the child feels emanate from the child and not from the foreign government. If that American child is then raised and educated in the United States, that child owes nothing (no taxes, no allegiance, no loyalty, no nothing) to that foreign government. He didn't ask for any gratuitous offer of citizenship by the government of that foreign country and he owes nothing for it.

As to permissible construction(s) for the natural born citizen clause, I asked another poster in post 440 the following question:

How many individuals from that generation can you quote to the effect that we must confine ourselves to Vattel's treatise (written in French) to provide meaning to the "natural born citizen" clause?

How would you answer that question?

[Servant of the Cross]

... it's like playing chess with a pigeon ... it craps the board, knocks the pieces on the floor, and proceeds to strut around like he’s made a point.