Posted on 01/20/2016 6:57:04 AM PST by RC one
Quite the quandry indeed. Endorse subverting the constitution to allow Cruz to usurp the office, or follow the constitution. Decisions, decisions.
“The fact that his mother was enrolled in classes in Seattle on August 19, 1961 makes that a pretty difficult thing to believe.”
But did she attend them?
Was she lying then, or is she lying now? Maybe she studied the law, and found out her previous position was in error.
Nobody is saying Ted is not an American.
No, they were not stupid. That’s why they would all say that Ted is eligible, as evidenced by their clear language. As I stated, I think stridency over nonsense gives pleasure to some conservatives.
I would say the birth certificate cover up was not due to location or anything else, but who the father actually was.
I am still wearing a tinfoil hat and saying the real father was Frank Marshall Davis and the forging or other perceived foul play was to remove his name.
John Armor Bingham (January 21, 1815 – March 19, 1900) was an American Republican congressman from the U.S. state of Ohio, judge advocate in the trial of the Abraham Lincoln assassination and a prosecutor in the impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson. He is also the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Personal attacks are always a valid way of proving your point and settling a Constitutional question. In no way does it make you look like a complete nutter. More popcorn, please.
I don’t believe I have resorted to personal attacks much as it might be warranted.
If the will of Congress, expressed in a statute, was that children born in Cambodia, of Cambodian parents, are citizens of the US at birth (and it is ludicrous to think an infant is competent to participate in a naturalization ceremony), such an Act is valid under the power of Congress to naturalize. By your rule, these persons are NBC of the US. But your rule is not the one that operate in the law.
By the way, those hypothetical Cambodians would, as a matter of law, be citizens of the US.
We can look to the constitution, which contains the will of the founders. Art IV, Sec. 2 says that a person who is a citizen of a state is at the same time a citizen of the US. By your rule, Congress could change this, too, by Act of Congress.
The constitution. Where do you find in there that such child would be a citizen?
American mothers have AMERICAN children. You don’t WANT to accept the truth.
That is correct, of course, and the one-worlders do all they can to mislead and redirect the argument.
The perspective from Jay and Washington and the ENTIRE group of our founders - who, by the way had just fought an enormously bloody and costly revolution which was made even more difficult by "Americans" who were loyal to England - is apparent from both what is in the record and the fact the term NBC was included without debate:
The commander-in-chief's loyalty to the nation shall not be compromised by:
a) birth outside of the U.S. in a nation that may later attempt to influence that loyalty, nor;
b) birth to a non-citizen parent who may later be in a position to influence that loyalty.
Any who argue the founders did not intend such qualifications have the burden of demonstrating the founders intended something else. But there is nothing else, there is no better way of assuring the loyalty of the commander-in-chief. There is no evidence the founders intended anything but NBC in its highest form.
Was Mr. Bingham a Founder? No. This idea would have ruled ineligible our first eight presidents!
The constitution say who is a citizen of the US. If one is going to make a citizenship determination under US law, the constitution is one source of law, but not the only source of law. There are literally thousands of cases in US law on the subject of citizenship, when citizenship is in question. The determination of citizenship in those cases looks to citizenship law of other nations.
Your error, and you are hidebound to it, is to believe that as a matter of law, naturalization requires participation in a naturalization ceremony.
You are the one afflicted with magic thinking.
The question of citizenship is a question of law. I have produced my legal reasoning and argument, using the US constitution as my authority. Where there is some difficulty in understanding how that is applied, I have referred to SCOTUS precedent on the subject of citizenship, and the distinction between being born a citizen relying solely on the constitution, compared with citizenship attached solely by Act of Congress. The latter is "naturalized." Every bit an American as one born so, but not NBC.
I wasn’t referring to you, the poster of the article, but more to some of those that responded with personal attacks on each other and Ann Coulter, rather than arguing facts.
The internet.
Secondly, I will Take John Bingham's opinion over yours because, as I said, you are utterly clueless on this matter.
Thirdly, this utter cluelessness is evidenced by the fact that you don't even know what Article II, section I, clause 5 says, why it says it, or what it might mean and yet you feel qualified to assert that your opinion on this constitutional matter is somehow more valid than that of John Bingham.
Your fail is epic.
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.