Posted on 03/09/2016 6:42:13 AM PST by CodeJockey
You’re wrong and you know you’re wrong. You just want to argue because you don’t agree with the law and its current interpretation.
I’m not playing that game with you.
If you dont like it, change the law.
One problem with your formulation, for you, is that it is conditional. Congress does not have the right or power to declare that overseas soil is US soil, not for military bases and not for embassies. Diplomats are a special category, recognized for centuries as exempt from the normal operation of law.
Another problem is that case law finds those persons made citizens solely by operation of an Act of Congress are naturalized. You can protest that SCOTUS got it wrong, and has been getting it wrong on 100% of the born-abroad citizenship cases ever taken up, but the courts decide this, not us peons, and the courts have expressed the rule that the courts apply when the birth is abroad.
You still haven’t provided a citation. I’ll just put you on my list of worthless kooks to ignore, and please, you do the same for me. Bye.
Therefore, Natural Born means US Citizenship at birth, as opposed to Naturalized which means citizenship came at some point after the birth.
It is a very simple concept unless someone's intention is to contort the situation for some purpose. Anyone who claims otherwise has an agenda, and that agenda is not an honest one.
I certainly have and you know it.
As far as honesty goes, I suppose it is in the eye of the beholder, and as far as I am concerned, you are a liar. You may assign the same label tpo me, and we depart, forever enemies. Bye.
The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203.
“The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.”
You’re right, a child born to a US citizen over seas is a US citizen by birthright, not by naturalization or any court action.
Or so says US State Dept, Harvard Law, and a host of other sources.
Give it up, go change the law if you cant live with it.
Reality: There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.
It is obvious to me that you are clueless, because if you had a clue, you would not reach the conclusion you do, from the authority cited.
SCOTUS is superior authority to the US State Department and the Clement/Katyal Harvard Law Review article that avoids mention of the relevant SCOTUS precedents.
Your "change the law" remark is utter nonsense. What law am I supposed to advice changing, when all I am doing is observing the way that courts apply the law to facts in hand?
You get the last word.
The Constitution doesn't define year either.
Please see On Constitutional Eligibility posted here back in January.
ML/NJ
What documents did Cruz use to get a US passport? Since when has the US accepted Canadian birth certificate as verification of US citizenship... There is NO born in the USA birth certificate for Cruz and there will NEVER be one produced.
Some people are born to deceive and some are born to be deceived.
All these sources say you are wrong
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm
Those lawsuits were not thrown out because Cruz was decided to be a NBC.
They were thrown out because the judges had no precedent to make that call or reasons other than NBC status.
I prefer to believe that a person born of a citizen is a US citizen no matter where the birth takes place. Native Americans were not considered citizens till immigration law gave it to them.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf
I guess we’ll see alot of court cases flying around if Cruz wins the nomination.
There is no SCOTUS case law or applicable common law that I have seen that is helpful for resolving Cruz' situation. The fact that congress believed McCain was eligible indicates that they believed the definition of NBC is the definition I have been using, which is citizen at birth IAW applicable laws at the time. Since congress certifies the results of presidential elections (not the Court), their opinion is fairly significant.
You were a US citizen from birth. See the applicable naturalization laws. John McCain was in the same position.
___________________________________________________________
Actually there was some question at the time about McCain, because IIRC, McCain, although born of two US citizens while his father was stationed in the US Canal Zone in Panama, was not born on US soil, i.e. the Canal Zone. The base hospital was not open yet, so he was actually born in a Panamanian hospital on Panama soil.
So, is John McCain a ‘natural born citizen’?
In the Bellei case, Bellei is necessarily a naturalized citizen (and all 9 justices agree that he is, the fact that Bellei is naturalized is no more contentious than the fact that Bellei sued for his citizenship back, or that his suit underwent a trial), because if he was not naturalized (if he was NBC), it would be unconstitutional to strip him of his citizenship against his will.
-- The fact that congress believed McCain was eligible indicates that they believed the definition of NBC is the definition I have been using, which is citizen at birth IAW applicable laws at the time. --
S.Res. 511 is flawed, but people accept all sorts of unconstitutional acts. Just by way of example, the 1790 act is viewed by the courts as a naturalization act, not as a "make natural" act. At this point that view is merely academic, but the Bellei court and WKA court cited the 1790 act as an act of naturalization. By it's plan language, the 1790 act is the opposite of a definition. There are many signs that Congress knew S.Res.511 was in the nature of perpetrating a falsehood, including proposals for constitutional amendments that allow non-native-born persons to assume the office of the president.
Many people think that Congress is the only word on the subject of NBC. It looks that way in practice, resulting in a reality that if Congress certified the election of a foreigner to the office, there is no remedy.
Not that the constitution has any meaning, I think it is a dead letter and we live in a banana republic, but under the general historical principle that courts are the deciders of citizenship, and a desire for a check on a rogue Congress, I think that the courts should be able to review a finding by Congress on the NBC question. If the courts decide the question is judiciable, what can Congress do to stop the courts from rendering an opinion? Granted, like with Marbury v. Madison, perhaps the court is powerless to effect a remedy; but while reaching that conclusion, if can find whether a foreign born person can be an NBC.
I think all three branches are actively subverting the constitution. The NBC question is small potatoes in the scheme of things, but it is another example of how the constitution is set out of view when it is convenient to do so.
I was not a birther about Bambi and dang sure not about Cruz. He is you know a constitutional scholar. Thank you Ted for all the Supreme Court decisions you won for conservatives.
Nothing I said calls for this type of hysterical, over-the-top attack.
I certainly never accused you of lying.
This seems like projection to me... Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.
I don't know you other than from here, but I suspect you make up in aggression what you lack in decorum and discernment.
It is a very simple concept unless someone's intention is to contort the situation for some purpose. Anyone who claims otherwise has an agenda, and that agenda is not an honest one.
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.