Posted on 01/11/2016 5:31:53 AM PST by iontheball
Many members of the political-media establishment are either deliberately misrepresenting facts for political reasons or they are simply ignorant of those facts, that is, the manner in which one becomes a citizen as opposed to the concept of natural born citizenship.
Those who equate "citizen" with "natural born citizen" often misinterpret Constitutional law and statute law, the latter meaning that Congress may pass laws only defining the manner in which one becomes a citizen, either citizen by birth or a naturalized citizen, not the Constitutional concept of natural born citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at familysecuritymatters.org ...
All of this is *so* 2007.
/s
Go Cruz.
Dump Trump.
What difference at this point does it make?
Pffft, original intent? Who needs that when you can have a Canadian-Cuban President. He can feed us moros y cristianos with shredded bacon bits and Canadian beer. It’ll be great!
If we accept anything less than original intent then it means that a Beirut-born individual with US citizenship and perhaps his foreign national parent (turned US citizen) with one parent citizen at birth could obtain the presidency. I see a problem ahead in light of how fast and easy immigration has been managed this last decade or so.
We are not confusing anything. There are only two categories of citizen.
natural born and naturalized.
Enough with the ridiculous, ‘Hillary Clinton’ birther nonsense.
The first claim is not relevant.
This change would allow naturalized citizens to run for President in addition to natural citizens.
“January 14, 1975 - Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution - “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
Ditto.
Just another proposal to allow naturalized citizens to run if they have been a citizen for 35 years.
“June 11, 2003 - Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress - “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
Same for the third claim.
Just another attempt to allow naturalized citizens to run.
This time with only a 20 year requirement.
“September 3, 2003 - Democrat Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: - “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.”
The world has swallowed the lie that Barry Soetoro was born in Hawaii so the criminal-in=chief has been granted a pass for his treachery (he was born in Vancouver, btw). With Roberts soiling the bench at sCOTUS Cruz has not one chance of being passed if the democraps can get the case to the Roberts court.
As far as I’m concerned if you don’t care about the difference then you’re not a patriot.
This is a misquoting of Vattel.
“They knew from reading Vattel that a “natural born citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents (Vattel, Section 212 in original French and English translation).”
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-difference-between-a-us-citizen-and-a-natural-born-citizen#ixzz3wwYkFO92
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Can we take seriously any article that used the infamous Dred Scott decision as one of its cases?
..... {Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)}
We all know that Dred Scott was wrongly decided by a democrat controlled Supreme Court.
This was a court case that helped start the United States Civil war.
Toss this article in the trash can where it belongs !!!
IT IS RUBBISH.
“That is the definition of a “natural born citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.”
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-difference-between-a-us-citizen-and-a-natural-born-citizen#ixzz3wwYwcB2G
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
The original intent is to prevent people having foreign allegiance from being president.
Where is information that he was born in Vancouver?
What extremely weak reasoning we have here.
... England was a monarchy.
... The United States is a constitutional republic.
... Therefore the English Common Law definition does not apply.
SERIOUSLY?!!
The author is an idiot.
No, that is too kind.
The author is a complete, total, dithering moron.
What a stupid line of reasoning. Now wonder they did not bother to include any of these stupid claims.
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-difference-between-a-us-citizen-and-a-natural-born-citizen#ixzz3wwZfSS79
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
“There are historical arguments too numerous to include in a short article, which explain why the definition of “natural born subject,” as found in the English Common Law, was not used as the basis of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution because Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a constitutional republic.”
“We are not confusing anything. There are only two categories of citizen.natural born and naturalized.”
Exactly correct. There isn’t a third category. Mama Cruz was born in the USA. She never renounced citizenship. No matter where Cruz was born he is an NBC. To put the birther comparison to rest there has been no cover up to hide documents or circumstances with Cruz as opposed to Obama.
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.