Posted on 06/06/2015 11:48:59 PM PDT by JohnBrowdie
this forum is becoming a mouthpiece for cruz.
Actually it is you who is wrong.
A person who does not need to be naturalized is naturally born a citizen. Citizen at birth means that they are naturally born a citizen and thus qualify as a natural born citizen. The very first Congress established this in their very first acts on the subject.
Cruz tried to give it away with his vote on the trade bill. It is an attractive line, however.
“It was legislation to stop a runaway tyrant president from acting on his own with a trade agreement.”
You mean Obama is trying to pass a bill that CURTAILS his power? Obama was joyous when the senate passed the bill. Was his joy because he lost some power? This is sarcasm, I hope.
Of course, I meant “natural born”.
incorrect.
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was used by the founders to insure no split allegiances, at least by birth, as well as no foreign king able to one day be president of the US.
using YOUR understanding, the son of william and kate, if born in NYC, could one day be president and king. OBVIOUSLY, your understanding of the term is incorrect.
and the very first congress did address this... using the common term ‘natural born citizen’ ... which has only been muddied by those trying to get their ineligible candidate into the office.
You're coming across as rational to me...
You obviously have not read the enumerated powers of Congress or the first acts of congress. I used to believe as you did until I educated myself and actually studied the subject.
“A person who does not need to be naturalized is naturally born a citizen.”
So, by your definition, every anchor baby is eligible to be POTUS.
From the audio of the interview (WRKO Town Hall with Ted Cruz, May 30, 2015, Hour 2), for TPA, the legislation has been 6 years in making. President should have an authority to negotiate the trade deal until it is finalized, then send the bill to the Congress for up-or-down vote with no amendment. (Otherwise, President has to go back and re-negotiate. How long will it take to get it done? That's why it is called “Fast Track”)
In response to people who are afraid that he voted to give more power to Obama, he said that he didn't trust Obama at all. Obama won't be in the office in 19 months. He looked into the future for the next president to have an authority to negotiate. Hopefully, the next president will be a Republican, especially him. Now is the time to get it passed with Democrats. If we wait for the next administration (Republican), Democrats in Congress will vote it down no matter what.
For TPP, he said it was stupid to have the text classified. He READ the TPP. It was relatively a straightforward trade agreement. He didn’t have weeks to study each paragraph closely. Unfortunately, from the past history of the administration’s abuse of power, the secrecy gives the impression that they are hiding something horrible in the bill. Fortunately, under TPA they have to make any trade agreement, including TPP, PUBLIC FOR 60 DAYS BEFORE THE COGRESS CAN VOTE ON IT. People can study closely at this time. But personally HE WANTED THE TEXT PUBLIC RIGHT NOW.
Love,
Isara
An America-hater president will do what he/she wants to do anyway without the Congress, as we are seeing right now. As you would say, "Congress? we don't need no stinking Congress!"
Yep. He’s also on the right GOPe side of amnesty for illegals, though he tries to make it sound otherwise by standing tough on other purported issues re: illegal aliens.
what exactly one has to do to change size?
Please describe!
I obtain link address and post it as is.
Right now, though, I'm not ready to abandon Ted Cruz simply because the alternatives for the most part fall short. Scott Walker perhaps, but I need some definitive explanations on his immigration position. The others don't come anywhere close to my ideals and values.
As a friend advised me, don't look for the perfect candidate because he/she doesn't exist. We have to decide whether the flaws of any candidate are something we can live with.
I wish Ted Cruz would explain his vote and clarify his position. The longer he does not, the more suspicions grow. Honestly, I'm not in favor of ANY trade agreement because more recent agreements have not favored the US at all. In this case, we can not only not trust our trade partners, we also can't trust our own president. And we can't view the proposed agreement? What kind of nonsense is that?
Maybe there is some brilliant strategy in the mind of Ted Cruz afoot here. I just hope it isn't a matter of him going over to the dark side.
“Fortunately, under TPA they have to make any trade agreement, including TPP, PUBLIC FOR 60 DAYS BEFORE THE CONGRESS CAN VOTE ON IT.”
That is odd, because the Senate has already passed TPP, and Boehner wants the House to pass it this week. Obama will sign it immediately. Senator Sessions has studied the bill and he says it turns the country over to global governance. That is why it is secret; it would cause such an outcry that it would not pass. Cruz and the Republicans are traitors; I don’t care anymore what Cruz says about the Constitution, he is a liar. And, anyone now who still promotes free trade is not dealing with a full deck. Free trade has gutted the country’s manufacturing base. That is why 93 million Americans have no job.
CHAP, III.—An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.(a) SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to 'support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the pro- ceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that maybe born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed,(«) APPROVED, March 26, 1790.source: http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf
this section refers to naturalizing the citizens within the NEWLY FORMED country. it was also repealed in subsequent acts over the following 7 years starting in 1795.
as is, this provision was to deal with the situation at hand at the time. two people in the country were newly defined as citizens and their children would be defined as natural born citizens, even if they were born in another country at the time this document was approved. this is a 'one off' situation needed to address the issues of the newly formed nation similar to the "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" phrased used in A2S1C5 of the Constitution.
either way, another thing to note is the plural used... "children of citizens of the US". this again implies two citizen parents needed to establish natural born citizenship.
Very disheartening. I know just how you feel.
well goody for you. I guess you can back the libtard Rand
Rand Paul did not, as far as I have seen. Where did you see that he did?
Your comments are the careless one-liners of an ignorant child.
The 14th Amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.The bolded part, in the discussion of the amendment, was meant to exclude children of diplomats born in the US. It would also exclude foreign kings and other persons with diplomatic immunity. It would specifically INCLUDE children of legal immigrants.
An argument could be made that the clause would exclude babies born to people illegally in the US.
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.