Posted on 02/18/2016 2:38:43 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Your opinion is correct, sir.
Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise.
Next time you are in court try using natural law as a defense against a Statutory violation. Oh and enjoy you time in jail or paying the fine.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A1,S8,C4 To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization (admission of aliens- those with foreign citizenship)
A2,S4 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; (those at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were all born a citizen of a foreign nation)
14th Amendment All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
Elk v Wilkins (1884) opinion of the US Supreme Court, Justice Gray delivering the opinion of the Court:
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
"No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President," and "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized
One can not be deemed to have direct and immediate allegiance at birth if they are born in a foreign country as a citizen of that foreign country.
Intentional law .. find the enabling statute for that in us law. With out I.L. is void in the USA. And treaties are below the constitution
http://www.westernjournalism.com/why-obama-backed-un-treaties-cant-trample-constitution/
1903 Cyclopedia of law and procedure, Volume 7 (America Law Book Company, New York) By William Mack, Howard Pervear Nash
- Children Of Aliens. The child of a citizen father and of an alien mother is a citizen ; but one born of an alien father and of a citizen mother is not a citizen
- DOUBLE CITIZENSHIP: In this country a double citizenship exists, for the term applies both to membership in the nation considered as a whole and to membership in the state in which the individual may reside.
Well, DUH ... without even going to the link ... no law or treaty can be made that would make any clause of the US Constitution of no effect. The only way that can be done is by amendment and that is why the amendment process adopted was one that ensured the rights of the majority, to make it difficult that a minority could not force on the majority, that which they do not believe.
The ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ clause of the constitution does not appear until the 14th amendment, Ratified 7/9/1868. Does that mean that prior to 1868, a person could be born a citizen without being ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the U.S.?
Obviously NOT. ‘Natural Born Citizen’ was defined and explained in 1758, long before the Constitution was written and before the Revolution even began, and does not need any legislation as it is a natural law, according to nature and common sense.
What is the point you are trying to make. I was under the impression that you agreed with the meaning of NBC as born in country to citizen parents, which naturally (according to natural law and common sense) means ‘subject to the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of that country’. Is that not your belief?
The reason I am confused is because your post listed me 1st as the one for which your comments were directed and taxcontrol 2nd (or last)as a courtesy to one with whom you agreed. This is the usual way FReepers post.
Please explain.
Your flippant response is insulting and implies that bad laws are never written and passed. What a crock.
Every judge listens to arguments of common sense and logic and when the law as written is ambiguous or contrary to common sense and logic, the law hass in many cases been overturned (and sometimes nullified by juries). Appeals courts often do this, and legislatures repeal bad laws.
You obviously can’t respond to my previous post with any facts or logical thinking. Pity.
BTW, I don’t violate the laws, so I don’t have to worry about jail or fines. Not being a lawyer, I did, however, represent myself, Pro Se, in my divorce case and subsequent 2 year custody battle in which I won sole custody of my daughter, using logic and common sense. At the time, the laws of my state favored always awarding custody to the mother, not the father.
You do know that Family Court uses a different set of standards right being a civil court of limited jurisdiction ? Especially in the case of a child.
But even though we are on opposite sides of the issue I wish you and your Daughter the best. I also congratulate you on doing something fairly rare as the basic “tender years” doctrine made victory far from easy.
Where is the documentation that Cruz’s mother could give US citizenship? She sure did not give ‘natural born’ US citizenship.
How did Cruz get a US passport... surely you are not claiming a US passport is given with only a Canadian birth certificate?
Cruz claims he is eligible where is his proof? Show how his mother gave him US citizenship? Claiming something without evidence is nothing.
If she was a fully qualified US citizen when he was born, she can transfer her citizenship to him at birth. If you wish to contest her claim to citizenship, that’s fair game. However, when such a challenge is raised, the burden would fall on you to provide evidence her claim of citizenship was invalid. You would have the right to do extensive discovery, and if you knew where to look, maybe you could find something. But the burden, legally, is on you, not her, to make out a case against her claim to US citizenship. What have you got?
Peace,
SR
That IF is the 64 million dollar question now isn't it? You are taking it on faith that she could give US citizenship without any shred of evidence.
How did Cruz get a US passport? No way he got it with a Canadian birth certificate. He has to have some kind of documentation he is a US citizen. Where is that documentation?
Cruz is the one making the claim he is 'natural born', why should I or anyone else be required to disprove his claim? He wants to be president, lawyer Cruz has not provided anything to prove he is what he claims to be.
You still have not answered how Cruz could get a US passport. His mother’s birth certificate?
you are listed first because it was your comment that I was responding to ... but for further clarification ....
The Constitution begins with “We the People ... and our Posterity” .... our Posterity is the future ‘natural born’ children of the founders as all founding fathers were born subjects/citizens of a foreign nation. Laws of the time stipulated that wives & children are of the nationality of the husband/father respectively.
A1,S8 rules for naturalization of those born a citizen of a foreign nation
A2,S1 No person but a ‘natural born’ citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution (naturalized- they ALL took an oath to the cause of the revolution, thereby expatriating themselves from Great Britain)
Therefore, even before the 14th, the language of the Constitution defined the difference between natural born & naturalized and that difference is of “exclusive” allegiance at birth, the natural born to the US at birth & the naturalized to a foreign nation at birth.
Justice Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution"
§ 183. II. In construing the constitution of the United States, we are, in the first instance, to consider, what are its nature and objects, its scope and design, as apparent from the structure of the instrument, viewed as a whole, and also viewed in its component parts. Where its words are plain, clear, and determinate, they require no interpretation; and it should, therefore, be admitted, if at all, with great caution, and only from necessity, either to escape some absurd consequence, or to guard against some fatal evil. ...
§ 188. IV. From the foregoing considerations we deduce the conclusion, that as a frame or fundamental law of government, (2.) The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the constitution; that which will give it efficacy and force, as a government, rather than that, which will impair its operations, and reduce it to a state of imbecility. Of course we do not mean, that the words for this purpose are to be strained beyond their common and natural sense; but keeping within that limit, the exposition is to have a fair and just latitude, so as on the one hand to avoid obvious mischief, and on the other hand to promote the public good. ...
§ 210. XV. In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.
Justice James Wilson (1791)
The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge.
Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.
The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction.
The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person... Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.
[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family...[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good.
The foundational principle that a husband and a wife become one, not just spiritually, but also politically is the very framework by which all families are knit together in both home and community for the safety & well being of both home and community. Wilson, as well as all of our founding fathers, knew this very well. It was the rock upon which our freedom from the tyranny of the British government was laid.
Raphael & Betty Cruz had applied and received “permanent legal residence” from the Canadian government, probably as part of their naturalization process, as it is here, because they are listed as Canadian citizens in 1974 & Raphael had admitted that indeed, he became a Canadian citizen in 1973. They had established a lucrative business & purchased a home. Along with the ‘permanent resident’ status, in the eyes of US law & Canadian law, Canadian citizenship laws absolutely applied to the child born to them.
I suggest you read Perkins v Elg (1939) ... it is the father who confers citizenship when the child is born in wedlock
At that time, wouldn't he have had to show authorities proof of when and how he became a US citizen?
One of the longest non-answers I’ve ever read here. Curious. So you cannot cite me any binding legal authority to support your hypothesis that a foreign “understanding” of an American child’s citizenship supersedes American law for that child? As you wish.
BTW, good reads. Thanks for posting.
Peace,
SR
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.