Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
You have been quite a voluminous source of amusement.
Can I get an AMEN!
Ah, yes. The sound of someone who refuses to be swayed by any facts or reality, now looking for the exit door.
I know you're attached to the idea that it takes citizen parents to make a natural born citizen. But it just doesn't. And to pretend it does, aside from being a twisting of the Constitution and a dishonoring of our Founders, is no longer just an argument against Obama. It's an argument that NOW can directly hurt conservatives.
It's a shame that reality is such an undesirable state for you. Honestly, if one just goes with the facts, one ends up on the winning side. Because facts always beat fantasy.
You might give that some thought.
A modern court will often spell out its ‘holdings’ in specific detail. For example, in this case involving a suit against Jiffy Lube:
“P10 Plaintiffs contend the court erred in granting Jiffy Lube’s motion for summary judgment. [HN1] In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered...
...P12 [HN2] “To establish a claim for negligence, [***7] a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 143, P 9, 150 P.3d at 230. [HN3] Duty is an “obligation, recognized by law, requiring the [defendant] to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks.” Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, 504, 667 P.2d 200, 204 (1983) (quoting W. Proffer, Handbook on the Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971)...
...[HN4] Whether a defendant owes the plaintiff a duty is a threshold issue. Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 143, P 11, 150 P.3d at 230. Absent a duty, a negligence action cannot be maintained. Id...
...In analyzing this issue, [HN5] the Arizona Supreme Court considered two factors in evaluating the existence of a duty: (1) the relationship between the parties and (2) public policy considerations. Id. at 144-146, PP 18-26, 150 P.3d at 231-233.”
All from JOSEPH BRYANT DIAZ; JOSEPH DIAZ, JR.; PATRICIA DIAZ, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. PHOENIX LUBRICATION SERVICE, INC. dba JIFFY LUBE, Defendant/Appellee.
224 Ariz. 335; 230 P.3d 718; 2010 Ariz. App. LEXIS 70; 581 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 32
Modern folks being dumbed down, many courts will not very specifically mark out each step in their argument. That isn’t done everywhere, and certainly was not the habit of 100+ years ago. But the holding of a court is the entire reasoning used to reach the conclusion, not just the conclusive statement.
WKA spent at least 2 of the major sections discussing natural born subject / natural born citizen / native citizen, all of which it considered to be interchangeable. They did not write all that stuff just because. They wrote it because it was an integral part of their decision.
Unhappily, most birthers cannot read paragraphs and pages, and thus, like MamaTexas, become utterly confused.
And at an irreducible minimum, the argument used in WKA would be persuasive precedence, if not binding - although I think any court would treat it as binding. That has certainly been the case so far!
It's the entire rationale for their decision. That makes it binding precedent. So yes, I would agree that any court would treat it as binding.
Birthers say the very brief comment in Minor is "binding precedent." But it isn't. It's just a totally throwaway comment that is absolutely irrelevant to the resolution of that case.
Virginia Minor was NOT born of alien parents, so any comment they might make regarding people who were was simply not relevant to Minor. That, and the fact that the Court did no analysis of the issue at all, makes it absolutely classic DICTA, or side commentary.
WKA is very different. Here we have dozens of pages of legal and historical analysis that are completely relevant and in fact CORE to the final disposition of the case. So all of that discussion makes for a genuine binding precedent.
Again, that's why lower courts have simply declared Obama a natural born citizen, based on the WKA precedent, and why the Supreme Court absolutely refuses to rehear the arguments. They were exhaustively argued and decided in 1898.
But birthers won't tolerate the standard methods of the way the legal system reasonably works. Because competent law does not produce the results they want. Neither (as we've seen) will they tolerate making decisions that are based on the evidence, rather than on their feelings and preferences. For the same reason.
I concur with your thoughts on the wisdom of why roots & family are important for eligibility to run for president.
I just wish the writers of constitution and the amendments passed thereafter would have explicitly stated what a NBC is. But it is not. Therefore all we have in interpretations.
Obama’s father was never a US citizen That fact is well known and indisputable. Since the SCOTUS has not overruled on Obama’s eligibility, a legal precedent has been set. Legal precedents carry a lot of weight. Whether you like or not, anyone born on US soil (even with a computer synthesized Hawaii BC) will be eligible in future regardless of his/her parents citizenship status.
I am willing to bet, if Rubio runs, the SCOTUS will NOT rule him ineligible. He was born on US soil of legal immigrant parents. Rubio should thank Obama for setting that precedent.
As for Cruz, it gets more muddled. He was born in Canada and both his parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth. And none of his parents were on official duty in Canada.
regarding children of legal immigrants, because that is settled law. Such children are natural born citizens.
_______________________________________
No theyre not
If the registered aliens are not yet American citizens the children are American citizens but not NBC
If the parents have both been naturalized BEFORE the child was born and are now therefore American citizens then the child and any other children born will be NBC...
Yes indeed, I 100% agree with that. Vladimir Putin wouldn’t even qualify under the “14 year residence in the United States” requirement of Article 2, Section 1. It would be constitutionally illegal for him to “act as president” in the United States.
He is ineligible.
You are absolutely correct about Wong Kim Ark.
Lol.
Certainly, they are.
Believe me, I've studied this issue from every possible angle.
I've now read every significant court case and heard every birther argument.
And all of those arguments are absolute BS.
See some of the recent discussion, including the recent post on Wong Kim Ark.
Don't you ever wonder why there's not a single court in the entire country that will even give the time of day to these claims? Except, in some cases, to simply cite Wong Kim Ark and tell the plaintiffs to go away?
It's because EVERY SINGLE COURT AND EVERY SINGLE JUDGE IN THE COUNTRY understands that this particular question was settled long ago.
It is only uninformed people commenting on the internet that believe there is anything to these arguments.
Unfortunately, uninformed people vote. And some of them are just fooled enough to actually WITHHOLD their votes from perfectly eligible candidates - like TED CRUZ - and even elect idiot liberals instead, because of the depth of their deception.
There just isn't a case. Because as has been extensively discussed in this thread, the claim is absolute BS.
I don't know how I can be any clearer than that. The only lamentable thing is that I feel there is no way that I can convey how extremely clear it is, both legally and historically speaking, that there is NOTHING to the two citizen parent claim.
Do you realize that you are suggesting the child of an illegal alien could be POTUS ???
No. Again, you are asking for unqualified acceptance of unsubmitted evidence. I believe someone looking for the truth puts their cards on the table instead of playing stupid little guessing games.
Like this-
In the Supreme Court Case Brown v. United States 1814 concerning a violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 quotes Vattel in the decision. Joseph Story, [who wrote his Commentaries on the Constitution after Rawle] writing the dissent, quoted Vattel as well.
Not Pufendorf, not Grotius, not Burlamaqui, not even Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu.
Vattel.
-----
First, show me where the Founding Fathers or Framers ever said it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
Why would they? Natural born citizenship is not under the purview of government.
----
So that means that when writing the rule for the United States, we can substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see "subject."
The hell we can. Free people are not 'subjects'.
-----
And the also told us that the sovereign, or king has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
Wrong again. The collective body ISN'T king, the People are. It's why we're called SOVERIGN Citizens.
The only kind of 'citizen' the collective can make is a naturalized one.
-----
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
No, THIS is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark court....
becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.
AFTER it's explanation that
that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens
-----
And all of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling.
ROFLMAO! You go through that convoluted pile of drek you call 'rationale' that runs totally counter to the words of the decision itself then have the unmitigated gall to accuse ME of 'contorting to twist the ruling'?
You're not only a fraud, but a completely delusional one.
If the The Messiah's people are on this Free Republic board, I don't think they can legitimately be called freepers. I have seen the tricks of the alinskyite types close up and infiltration is one of them.
The courts have ruled differently. For example, specific to the eligibility of Obama to receive Indiana’s Electoral votes in 2008, in Ankeny v Daniels, a three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
That ruling has not been overturned by a higher court.
I am simply telling you what the law is.
The law is crystal clear in the case of alien immigrant parents residing here legally.
It is just, simply, absolutely, VERY clear.
Parental citizenship is NOT required to make a natural born citizen. It never was. We have this on VERY good authority, even before the 1898 WKA decision. The WKA decision was a completely accurate decision in that regard.
Does that extend to the children of ILLEGAL aliens? That particular case has never been decided. I think there is a good argument to be made that it does NOT.
But that's a case for the courts.
As for the children of legal immigrant non-citizens, they are natural born US citizens. There is not even any contest to that, except in discussions by people who only think they understand the law, on the internet.
Yes. This thread is crawling with them. You can tell who they are.
... and yet there was. Please point to any credible published source to back up your novel assertions. All who were natural born subjects certainly did not become natural born citizens. There was a very important distinction there that is completely lost on you, due to your peculiar insistence that the US was just a continuance of English rule. I guess there was no need for the American Revolution just as there was no need for the grandfather clause under your tortured interpretation of not just Constitutional law but recorded history?
This isn’t open for dispute. It was involved in multiple inheritance cases. I’m sorry you have believed otherwise, but no court from early America agreed with you. You are completely wrong on the facts.
Point out an instance of an English natural born subject who remained so of their own free will who was ruled eligible to inherit property in early US history, immediately post-Revolution, Mr. Rogers. This should be interesting.
Oh, and by the way, I notice you haven't responded at all, as to just who is recorded in history books as having been our first natural born citizen President. Is there a particular reason you've chosen not to provide such an easily determined answer?
The answer negates your assertions, that's why you've not responded.
“Obama jabs birthers with Irish Certificate:”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/obamas-jabs-birthers-with-irish-certificate/
No, I'm not. I am simply asking for a commitment from you that if the evidence is better that someone else supplied the phrase, you will drop your claim that Vattel supplied it.
That is very straightforward, and it is a commitment that no honest person who is willing to go according to the EVIDENCE would EVER refuse to make. And the fact that you REPEATEDLY refuse to make such a basic commitment - to simply go by the evidence - is a very clear indication that you have no intention of going by the evidence.
So it's very clear that you are simply going to preach two citizen parents and Vattel, no matter what. No matter HOW fictional it is.
I believe someone looking for the truth puts their cards on the table instead of playing stupid little guessing games.
Why should anyone actually bother presenting evidence to you, when you've made it absolutely clear that no evidence that can be presented would cause you to change your mind? It's completely irrelevant whether I present you with the evidence or not, because you absolutely refuse to be swayed by evidence.
Now look how very far out you are. Not only are you a little bit biased. You are so biased that you absolutely REFUSE to make a simple commitment to go where the evidence leads you.
That is WAY, WAY out there. That is LOONYVILLE. That is KOOKSVILLE.
Of course, you're in good company. Because your behavior is no different from that of the TYPICAL BIRTHER.
In the Supreme Court Case Brown v. United States >SNIP<
Wow. You found a court case that cites Vattel.
Amazing.
Of course, the citation of Vattel has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with citizenship.
I have repeatedly said that Vattel was influential in the area of INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Was he cited in court cases? Yes.
Did he define the Constitutional meaning of "natural born citizen?" ABSOLUTELY NOT. Had absolutely nothing to do with it.
We could find probably a HUNDRED authors who were cited in court cases. But virtually none of them had any influence on our term "natural born citizen."
First, show me where the Founding Fathers or Framers ever said it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
Why would they? Natural born citizenship is not under the purview of government.
Okay, so you admit you can't.
Well, I can cite DOZENS of quotations from early America that NEVER mention citizen parents, that NEVER say that natural born citizen takes citizen parents, and in fact use the term NATIVE (which always meant one born on the soil) synonymously to NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
If you want, I can cite some for you.
So that means that when writing the rule for the United States, we can substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see "subject."
The hell we can. Free people are not 'subjects'.
Can you not read the words of the United States Supreme Court? Apparently not.
And the also told us that the sovereign, or king has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
Wrong again. The collective body ISN'T king, the People are. It's why we're called SOVERIGN Citizens.
First of all, I fail to see any difference between "the collective body of the people" and "the People."
Gosh, you're not even rational at this point. Do you have any idea how foolish you look?
No, THIS is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark court.... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.
It is abundantly clear that you do not understand the first thing about law. You don't understand what makes for precedent. You can't even read the plain words of the Court, quoted above.
It is astonishing to me that people who know not the faintest thing about a topic will act as if they are the experts.
Of course, on the internet everybody is "equal." So anyone can claim to be an expert.
Well, here's the clue as to whether you are, or aren't.
NO COURT AGREES WITH YOU. Neither does any major Constitutional organization, INCLUDING ANY CONSERVATIVE ONE.
You are just another loony birther, and the fact that you accuse me of being "delusional" is a betrayal of the fact that you are so deep into your own delusion that you will probably never, ever emerge.
That's an ambitious agenda. I doubt that our system is going to fully satisfy you in this case.
But, the future will bring other issues and challenges.
No, I'm not particularly inclined to lend credence by donating my own labor to improve amateurish online presentations with which I disagree.
I note you failed to respond to my question. You created that graphic yourself, didn't you?
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.