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.
Now i'm beginning to think you are obtuse. The point isn't that they would, it's that they legally CAN! Such a thing is plausible *IF* you accept your theory. If you understand what is a Gedanken Experiment, then you can comprehend what I am saying. If you don't, then you are not ready to argue with me.
Believe me, I've heard everything you've had to say on this. I've read your stuff and the stuff written by just about everyone else out there. I've weighed the arguments on both sides. And yours fall flat, again and again.
And the odd thing is, no matter how many times you're shown the falsehoods and flaws, you simply won't give up your falsehood. One can quote a very strong and crystal clear authority like Rawle, who was friends both with George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and do you listen? No. Instead, you insult this friend of Washington and Franklin by falsely accusing him of having supported the British during the war.
By clinging with both fists to false doctrine regarding the Constitution, so hard that you will turn on and insult early American experts like Rawle, you are an enemy not only of William Rawle, but also of his friends George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and of the Constitution they gave us.
Again, you prove my point. (That the courts are not infallible.) You apparently don't realize that you have been wrangled into a trap. Either the courts are always right. (You lose, Rogers v Bellei) or the courts are sometimes wrong. (You Lose, Dred Scott v Sanford.)
I argue that the courts are often wrong, and that we should not rely on the opinions of the courts as being sacrosanct.
Oh, by the way, alleging the court must be wrong because of it's makeup is an "ad hominem." Look it up.
From YOU? Not even on my worst day.
-----
You will still go on believing that the Constitution talks about Vattel even though I have darn good evidence that it doesn't.
You have 'shown' NOTHING. You have presented no EVIDENCE.
I, however have shown offical government records to support MY position.
I have scrolled back through your posts. All YOU have done is try to brow-beat everyone into agreement using nothing more substantial than your OWN WORDS.
-----
After all, that's exactly what you're saying, isn't it?
Oh, you do love trying to put words in people's mouths, don't you there, champ.
The only people who have doubts about where I stand are the ones who deal mainly in vagaries in the first place.
Like you.
Cheers!
Great minds think alike! I'm thinking that even some of the smarter anti-birthers will have a real difficulty explaining away Rogers v Bellei. It pretty much destroys their argument for Cruz.
Not that I want to, I think he would make a far better President than the current occupant.
Your patronizing tone is offensive, and if you’ve such great sources that you’ve read on the subject, I’d think you’d give me a better one than you did.
A lot of these ya-hoos don't understand that after the Revolution, there were many thousands of people born in the United States after 1776 that considered themselves British Subjects. So did both the British Government, AND the US Government.
"Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts."
-- Henry Rosovsky
Whether you agree or disagree with the SCOTUS decisions is beside the point. What they decide is the law of the land.
The larger point I was making is that even though a good many people disagree with the SCOTUS decisions on abortion, or ACA, or Kelo, or whatever, there are birthers who will not accept a SCOTUS decision regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" if it does not fit their viewpoint.
No. Basis. In. History. Or. Law.
Period.
You are like the Election officials under Saddam Hussein. Nobody ever votes for the opposition. It's not true, but you keep saying it. There is plenty of evidence in both History and Law, but you just claimed there was none.
All anyone has to do to make you look like a liar and a fool is to provide one. The Thread above has already done so. A smarter argument would have been to claim that the BULK of evidence is on your side. (It isn't, but it is a more plausible claim.) To say there is NO evidence against you is just stupid.
But if you were smart, you wouldn't be arguing so strongly for the wrong side.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the chart or not. It is an accurate representation of what "natural born citizen" does and does not mean, as stated by every single real authority in the entire history of the United States.
Use the keyword, "NBC", and read the multitudes of threads posted here, which back up my assertion.
I've read those threads, and a lot more besides.
Here is a revised version of the chart, with a comment regarding Vattel at the bottom:
Do you know see how your one erroneous assumption is all that supports your other erroneous assumption? Of COURSE they put something into the constitution to prevent it!! You just don't accept the meaning they intended when they put it in there. I can't even give you a case of an obvious absurdity to get you to see how absurd is your theory!
Right. It was a case about DOMICILE, which is what Vattel was quoted for, and the quoted version of Vattel didn't even say "natural born citizens."
All of this has been extensively debunked before, of course. Probably by you. In any event, thanks for jumping in on it again.
Do I have your agreement that if those six points I made are correct, then it only makes sense that the references in the Constitution are not to Vattel, but to the other author I mention?
It's really not that hard. It seems a compelling case to me. Does it not seem a compelling case to you?
Do I need to go over those six points again?
It seems to me that this should be very, very easy to agree to. And yet you seem to refuse. Why?
As soon as you agree that you are committed to the evidence, rather than committed to necessarily clinging to what you so desperately seem to want to believe, then I will bring forth that evidence.
Then why did it not say so? Were they afraid of using too much ink by adding the words "Natural born" to the word "Citizen"?
Same thing with Wong Kim Ark. Was it just too much effort to write two more words "natural born" next to the word "citizen"?
You can either believe that they left out the words "natural born" in both the 14th amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision because they were lazy or stupid, or perhaps because they INTENDED THAT THOSE WORDS NOT BE IN THERE!!!!!!
Add to that the Waite Court in Minor v Happersett saying explicitly that "The constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens" all the while discussing the 14th amendment, and perhaps the picture starts to come into focus?
Apparently the 1875 Waite court couldn't find "natural born" in the 14th amendment anywhere. I'm surprised others can.
Which source was that? I refer to a bunch of different sources.
You’re welcome. I fell for it for the longest time until someone put me wise to it.
And wouldn't you know the English Common Law book which defined "natural born subject" used the Vattel Definition?
This was from John Adam's own personal copy of English law, by the way.
That might be true immediately after the Declaration, but not for much longer than that.
Although I'm not sure what your point is here.
"Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts." -- Henry Rosovsky
That's the best thing you've said.
There's that totalitarian impulse from Jeffy boy again. Geeze, free speech dude. Chill.
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.