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

The Ridgewood Blog ^ | August 27, 2013 | PJBlogger

[DiogenesLamp]

Given Levin's reasoning they could be president after living in the U.S. the required number of years.

Mark Levin has never given this issue a fair hearing. As a result of his intransigence at listening to and answering opposition arguments, I have no respect for his pronouncements.

I will likely lose this argument but Natural Born Citizen means no allegiance to another country.

I agree, but I would put it more along the lines of "No CLAIM of their allegiance from another country."

[DiogenesLamp]

I wish they would get an edit feature for Free Republic posts.

Me too. I occasionally make a mistake. Yes, I know, how can this be possible? It is a rare thing, but it happens once in awhile, non the less.

:)

[DiogenesLamp]

In the modern world, nearly two millennia after the fall of the Roman Empire, mothers can instill love of country as readily as fathers.

But for a country different from that of the Father's country? How does that work? Since the Roman Empire, the Mother always clung to the Father, and his country WAS her country. Dividing nationality in a marriage is only a recent phenomena which did not exist prior to 1922.

And as we know from the cesspool of daytime talk television’s obsession with paternity tests, the persons named as fathers are sometimes NOT the true father;

American law recognizes only the father of the marriage. In terms of what the child is exposed to, that is all that matters. The child is taught to love the same country as the Father of the marriage. From a practical standpoint, the Biological father is only relevant if he remains in the child's life. From a legal standpoint, he doesn't matter.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

“Whoa! You have really got yourself tangled up in this stuff. Please understand that you are choosing to adopt the positions that you are adopting. None of this is compelled.
...
The obvious purpose of the NBC clause (coupled with the residency requirement) is to ensure that a president is selected from a pool of candidates who all have strong political connections to the United States by heritage and by personal experience (residence). Coupled with the residence requirement, a requirement that a candidate be a “citizen by birth” is more than adequate to protect us from strangers.”

Well, if “citizen by birth” was the criteria and would have satisfied the Founders, why didn’t they just say that? Why have they wasted all our time by using the term “natural born”?

So, what you’re saying is that you are choosing to believe that natural born citizen = citizen at birth = dual citizen at birth = triple citizen at birth = natural born subject at birth. And, that you’re not feeling compelled to believe that there’s a higher definition of natural born.

Okay by me. That’s the beauty of free will.

[DiogenesLamp]

That is probably a bit of emotion gone overboard, but it is inconsequential. Current law accepts the citizenship of one parent, whether the father or the mother.

Current law accepts abortion on demand. It is wrong about that too.

To be honest, though, descent through the mother is actually easier to prove. Questions about the real mother are a lot easier to answer than questions about the real father.

Under American law, the Husband of the Marriage is the legal father. Being that he is generally the person who raised the child, to what country he holds allegiance, likewise influences the child.

I am adopted. I have no idea what my Biological father thought. I followed what my Adopted father thought.

[xzins]

Doesn’t matter.

By Birth Citizenship is either jus soli or jus sanguinis

[Servant of the Cross]

Are we debating what courts will do, or are we debating what is actually correct?

That I believe is where the "gnat strainers" go wrong. You debate 'what should be' ('actually correct' to use your phrase), while completely ignoring reality. The question facing us today in 2013 is 'what will the courts do?' Anything else is ... unfortunately, yes ... a useless waste of time. Navel-gazing at gnats as the world burns around us.

Do you respect the court opinion of Roe v Wade?

Of course not. And I publicly oppose it, by working in local pro-life efforts, walking in the March for Life and pray daily that it is properly overturned as ~3,000 babies die each day until it is.

But, on the other hand ... what is the price of tea in China?

[Tennessee Nana]

OK

well on another note...

I have been reading an old book online doing some family reasearch...

and I just happened to find just now a paper written in 1900 about Letters of Denisation etc (endowed citizenship) before the American Revolution, back when we were still English...

The author refers to documents giving various examples how some men gained citizenship after coming from France etc to the English colony..

One paper was “a Certificate of Nicholas Bayard Esq, then mayor of New York, dated the 7th of September, 1687, certifying that Stephen De Lancy had been an inhabitant one year and three months and had taken the Oath of Allegiance as directed in an Act of general Assembly made in the year 1683, entitled “An Act for naturalizing all those of foreign nations, then inhabiting within this province and professing Christianity and in pursurance of a proclamation of the Governor and Council”, of the 14th June then past, and that he had caused the said Stephen De Lancy to be enrolled.”

The author goes on to admit as mark levion did that he had not actually read the proclamation for himself but he wont forward an opinion anyway...

He continued further on “I suppose the “Act of Assembly” referred to , which has two enacting clauses,

the one that all foreigners of what nation soever, professing Christianity, that then were actual inhabitants within this province and had taken or subscribed, or that should take or subscribe the Oath of Allegiance, were thereby naturalized.

The other, that all foreigners of what nation soever, professing Christianity, that at any time after the said 1683, should come into this province, with an intent to become his Majesty’s subjects, and to dwell, settle, and inhabit accordingly, and take the Oath of Allegiance to his Majesty, and fidelity to his Royal Highness the Proprietor &c.

Every such person shall in all respects be deemed as his Majesty’s natural born subjects &c.”

(Collections of the Huguenot Society, (1886) Pp406, 407)

Now isnt that interesting...

a naturalized citizen became a “natural born citizen” in the early colony of New York..

However the author does go on to wonder if this formality was enough and if a person who has not been naturalized an Englishman by Act of Perliament in England itself can sit and act as a member of the Legislature in the colonies, and that Lord Cook in his “Fourth Part of the Institute of the Laws of England, Page 47, says, an alien cannot be elected of the Parliament, because he is not the king’s leige subject” and that the Letter of Denison was not enough to make the man a citizen of England.

he did however suggest the letter was enough to grant the person permission to obtain land in the colony (my own Huguenot ancestors had to do this to buy land)

so there is a lot written over the years about whether or not a person was eligible to hold office etc if he was not born in this country...

[editor-surveyor]

>> “You have decided noted jurists from Justice Scalia to those early in our history are “evil” without giving any reason why.” <<

.
False.

I clearly stated the reason why. They wish to subject men to the tyranny of government control of their lives.

Scalia is no better than Boehner or McConnell, or Rubio.

These men think that they are our betters, but they are our excrement.

The evidence that you ignore is the strong evidence.

Your standard supports false aliegiance.

Now go play with your Global Progressive pals; we have no time for your kind.

[DiogenesLamp]

By Birth Citizenship is either jus soli or jus sanguinis

By nature, it is always jus sanguinis. Nature transfers all characteristics by blood.

[DiogenesLamp]

That I believe is where the "gnat strainers" go wrong. You debate 'what should be' ('actually correct' to use your phrase), while completely ignoring reality. The question facing us today in 2013 is 'what will the courts do?' Anything else is ... unfortunately, yes ... a useless waste of time. Navel-gazing at gnats as the world burns around us.

When we let the courts decide what is right and wrong, we have forsaken our own free will, and shortly thereafter our souls.

When the courts are wrong we should say so. VEHEMENTLY.

Of course not. And I publicly oppose it, by working in local pro-life efforts, walking in the March for Life and pray daily that it is properly overturned as ~3,000 babies die each day until it is.

Then I would suppose you believe that life begins at conception and so too does personhood; That Personhood is an inherent characteristic of any child which has been conceived.

So is citizenship. It is a characteristic inherited from parents, not bestowed by the whim of congress.

Jus Sanguinus (Inherent by blood) is the Pro-life position.
Jus Soli (Acquired by birth on soil) is the Pro-"Choice" position.

[xzins]

By nature, it is always jus sanguinis. Nature transfers all characteristics by blood.

LOL!

Thank you!

So, you've just agreed that birthright citizenship based on descent by blood is "nature"al

[DiogenesLamp]

Thank you!

So, you've just agreed that birthright citizenship based on descent by blood is "nature"al

Absolutely. And the Father's blood is the dominant characteristic, especially in the case of a son. "Y" Chromosomes do not get inherited from Females.

[Jeff Winston]

As you well know, I’m not the liar here.

[DiogenesLamp]

As you well know, I’m not the liar here.

I have caught you lying so many times i've lost count. One of your FAVORITE lies is "ALL AUTHORITIES IN HISTORY AGREE WITH ME." (Proven wrong, countless times.)

You constantly try to assert that John Bingham agrees with you, when clearly he does not, and it has been proven that he does not.

You claim Bayard agrees with you, when clearly he does not and it has been proven that he does not.

You just recently claimed repeatedly that Thomas Jefferson was a citizen of France, and when THAT was proven wrong, you just kept repeating it anyway.

The only way you might not be a liar is if you have some sort of mental condition which inhibits you from comprehending the fact that you are telling untruths over and over again.

Judging by your past behavior, I'll buy "mental condition" as a viable defense.

[P-Marlowe]

So is citizenship. It is a characteristic inherited from parents, not bestowed by the whim of congress.

You could not be more wrong. Citizenship in a soverign nation is conferred upon a person based solely on the laws of that nation. There is no natural law entitlement to Citizenship. 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.

[Jeff Winston]

Thanks for pinging me.

Yes, having spent countless hours now digging through history and the law, I find the quote from the CRS to be accurate:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

[highball]

Maybe we can have a discussion on the “Intent” and “True Meaning” of the Commerce Clause?

We here all know how that’s been bastardized. Are we to do the same thing again?

I agree (thank Scalia for that one), but it's not remotely relevant. At least the Commerce Clause is actually in in the Constitution, unlike this nonsense:

The Cliff Notes version very clearly indicates that a “natural born citizen” is one born in a country whose parents are both citizens of that country.

You made an assertion of fact, I challenged you to back it up with an actual citation from our Founding Documents to buttress your "clearly indicate(d)" line. You have yet to do so.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Being that he is generally the person who raised the child, to what country he holds allegiance, likewise influences the child.

Nature transfers all characteristics by blood.

This is getting confusing. Is it blood or influence? What of the child conceived of two American citizen parents, but whose father is killed in battle when the child is an infant (or even before birth)? Without the father's influence, can he truly acquire the patriotism necessary for an NBC? What if the mother remarries a foreigner and the child becomes exposed to his influence--does he suddenly lose his NBC-ness because of his divided allegiance?

[Jeff Winston]

I have caught you lying so many times i've lost count.

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

Let me give you a clue here.

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. Like other people, I am human and in 2 years of debating this crap it's possible that once or twice I made a statement that wasn't entirely accurate. I seem to recall that I have once or twice, and that I quickly acknowledged and corrected the error.

One of your FAVORITE lies is "ALL AUTHORITIES IN HISTORY AGREE WITH ME." (Proven wrong, countless times.)

To my recollection, I never said "all authorities in history agree with me." I did say that virtually every significant authority in history who has spoken clearly on the matter disagrees with the birther meme, and I stand by that statement because it is true.

And the fact that you can dredge up very minor authorities like Samuel Roberts, or complete non-authorities like David Ramsay, who MIGHT agree with the birther BS, is not a contradiction of that.

You constantly try to assert that John Bingham agrees with you, when clearly he does not, and it has been proven that he does not.

No, it's never been "proven" that he doesn't. You can't provide any statement from Bingham in which he says a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents is anything other than a natural born citizen, because Bingham never made such a statement. Your point with Bingham depends entirely on your interpretation of the words "not subject to any foreign power." That Bingham didn't intend those words to include a child born to non-citizen, non-ambassador parents is evident when one reads the entire context of those debates, and especially when one notes that Bingham was present on the floor of the House when James Falconer Wilson quoted William Rawle stating absolutely that the child born in America of alien parents is a natural born citizen, and neither he nor any other member of Congress made the slightest objection to that.

You claim Bayard agrees with you, when clearly he does not and it has been proven that he does not.

Bayard says absolutely that you don't have to be born in the United States to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be President. You only have to be a citizen by birth. That's all that's required.

So your claim to the contrary is nothing more than an obvious and absolute clown show. Like all remaining birthers, when the evidence flatly contradicts you, you don't say, "Gee, I might be wrong." Instead, you deny the evidence and claim it says the opposite of what it clearly says.

Keep going. You look like a total fool.

You just recently claimed repeatedly that Thomas Jefferson was a citizen of France, and when THAT was proven wrong, you just kept repeating it anyway.

Nathan Dane said very clearly that Thomas Jefferson had been made a citizen of France. You are now at the point where about all you can do is, upon being given evidence that absolutely contradicts you, flatly and stupidly assert that it doesn't.

Keep going. You look like a fool.