Good. Now if we could just get you to stop responding, that would be better still. You are like the sheep in "Animal Farm". All you know how to do is chant:
"Four legs good! Two legs Baaaad!
At least Winston can rise to the level of a pig.
Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.
Snip~
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”
Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Look at it trying to reason! Something about barns. How cute!
He is an idiot. He is not worth wasting any effort on. He is merely good for mockery.
Natural Born.
Naturalized.
And now he's trying to do simple arithmetic. That's a good boy, yes one plus one is two. Now if we could just get you to count to three or more, we would be making some real progress.
I haven't ignored any of them.
Fallacy: A quote from John Marshall in the 1814 Supreme Court case of The Venus shows that the Supreme Court relied on Vattel for the meaning of “natural born citizen.”
Truth: The Opinion in The Venus doesn’t even contain the words “natural born citizen” at all. Justice Marshall makes reference to Vattel’s book, but it’s a more accurate English translation which says “natives or indigenes” (”indigene” is a word in English as well). And when Marshall cites Vattel, he’s not trying to establish a meaning for “natural born citizen.” He is trying to establish to what degree a citizen of America (natural born or naturalized, it made no difference) who was living and actively participating in the society of England should be respected as an American, and to what degree he should be treated similarly to the Englishmen he was acting like.
Therefore, Marshall’s quote in The Venus contributes absolutely nothing to the meaning of “natural born citizen” in American law.
It's been claimed that Justice Washington also supports the "both/and" theory. He doesn't. Consistent with others such as Marshall who have quoted Vattel as an authority on international relations and international law - but not on domestic citizenship - Washington uses ideas from Vattel and others to consider to what extent a citizen of one country, permanently living in a second country, should be treated as a citizen of the first country, or as a participant, or as a "kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens," in the second.
On the contrary, Marshall supports the well known and completely accepted principle, first articulated by Founder and Framer Alexander Hamilton, that terms in the Constitution ("natural born" is one of these) can be understood in the light of their definitions from English law, since that was where we got our legal terminology:
“The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.”
“As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.” Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833
Fallacy: David Ramsay’s treatise on citizenship shows that the Founding Fathers required birth on US soil, plus citizen parents, to make a natural born citizen.
Truth: The overwhelming rejection of David Ramsay’s ideas on citizenship - 36 to 1 - shows that those ideas did not represent our Founding Fathers and early leaders, and that his citizenship doctrine was flat-out wrong.
Why do you have to distort John Bingham's position to support your argument?
Again, I've done no such thing. You're the one who has distorted Bingham's position.
First of all, Bingham's words carry no legal weight whatsoever, since he was simply a Congressman speaking on the floor of the House. Any Congressman can express an opinion.
But you've been reduced to arguing that a Congressman speaking on the floor of the House, 75 years after the Constitution was written, and saying things some things that sound like they may support you, and other things that clearly contradict you, is an authority that "proves" your claim.
Your entire case with Bingham rests on the assumption that when he said, "not subject to any foreign authority," he included aliens in America in that category. And from the wording, that would seem, on the surface, to be a reasonable assumption.
But NOWHERE does Bingham EVER state that he's referring to anyone other than the traditional exceptions: foreign ambassadors, invading armies, and Indians in tribes.
It is absolutely clear that the discussion in the Senate, at least, was referring ONLY to those people.
And Bingham himself later DROPPED the wording you refer to, substituting instead, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," which clearly meant "subject to the laws of the United States." This made it clear, in the 14th Amendment, that the children of non-citizens born here were US citizens at birth.
Which, BY THE WAY, is what Bingham says "natural born citizens" are - CITIZENS AT BIRTH.
Why did Bingham change the wording? Probably because the original wording gave a false impression that the US-born children of aliens weren't citizens.
Given Bingham's clear equating "citizens at birth" with "natural born citizens," and given that he repeatedly says essentially everyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen, the MOST you can legitimately claim is that Bingham is unclear or ambiguous.
“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”
That boy REALLY IS THAT STUPID. I know it’s hard to believe, but I feel stupider every time I read anything he writes. Therefore, I endeavor not to do it.
Now you are starting to sound like Kansas58. I would be very worried were I you.
The notion that there are ONLY two categories is simply an artificial construct of those people who WANT there to be only two categories. It has no basis in reality.
Also, the notion that no Judge agrees with you is not evidence that you are wrong. Were it in fact true, it would merely mean that "you" and the Judges have a difference of Opinion. It doesn't mean that the judge is correct and you are wrong. Again, Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Lawrence v Texas, Wickard v Fillburn, etc. are All examples of where the judges were absolutely wrong.
You seemingly ought to know better than to attempt simplistic assertions as a substitute for actual logic. At least Winston tries to claim Rawle KNEW the founders, and therefore had some sort of clue what they meant. To say "A bunch of Judges says so, therefore it's true" is pathetic by comparison. (Unless, of course, you are referring to particular judges that may have been convention delegates or otherwise personally knew what the framers had in mind.)
I can do it too!
Mary had a little lamb
Whose fleece was white as snow
Every where that Mary went
The lamb was sure to go
What’s more, mine makes more sense.
> What will the libs and lefties be saying?
I imagine the same thing that the right said about Obama only this time Cruz will respond quickly and produce his birth certificate without spending millions of dollars of attorneys trying to keep people from finding out the truth...; )
It is really funny to watch someone of extreme ignorance complain about ignorance in others.
Heh. Are you now admitting that you have doubts about your own theory? Or are you confessing to being a fool?
Which is it? Because according to your own statement, above, it has to be one or the other.
As for me, I've spent the last couple of years basing my conclusions on the evidence, rather than on some theory of what I think natural born citizenship ought to be, and then trying to cram history and law into my theory. So I've been open to changing my mind at any point.
Except now, it's hard to believe there's anything terribly important about the subject that I haven't read. I've presented here tons of evidence from early authorities that confirm the historical understanding of natural born citizenship, and say that your theory couldn't possibly be more wrong.
I've also looked at literally dozens of claims from you and other Constitution-twisters here claiming to support your theory. Virtually all of these are just plain fallacy and BS. A very few provide weak support for the theory, which is completely overwhelmed by better evidence. Ramsay and Samuel Roberts are good examples of these.
Dumas was very instrumental in winning support for us from Europe, and he even became eventually our paid agent in Europe!
You say that as if it were in some way important.
Dumas was an influential American in the Netherlands!
He sent Ben Franklin 3 copies of Vattel's book!
Ben Franklin said thank you!
He also said that since Vattel had some good things to say about international relations between nations, and international law, he would probably consult the book frequently!
That means it takes birth on US soil PLUS citizen parents to make a natural born citizen!
You might try adding a couple of explanation marks to each sentence. Having three exclamation marks, instead of just one, will undoubtedly make your argument more convincing.
Oh - and don't forget to accuse anyone who debunks your BS of "lying." Or of being "paid."
Or of ignorance. That works too.
Actually, I agree. I wasn't the one who suggested I should research how Obama is ruining the country. It was one of your fellows who suggested that.
I don't think that is really him. I just posted that to tweak his nose a bit. I know with absolute certainty that there are plenty of Republicans who absolutely want to believe as does Jeff Winston. I have argued with them on many sites.
Of course, if it WERE him, it sure would explain a lot.
Yeah, you have to understand that his ability to understand numbers is restricted to “2”. Beyond that, he gets confused.
“That boy REALLY IS THAT STUPID. I know it’s hard to believe, but I feel stupider every time I read anything he writes. Therefore, I endeavor not to do it.”
Anybody who is at pains to tell you what a great logician they are...usually isn’t.
Reminds me of that direct quote by Joe Biden:
“I think I have a much higher IQ than you.”
Unless he was talking to Barack Hussein Obama...probably not so much. [Or, if that is a racist statement, substitute ‘the family dog’. (Though I’m perfectly happy to stipulate that Obama’s stupid came from his white half. If it helps.)]
Wouldn't Jim Rob or one of the Moderators have to do that? Is there a way to obtain someone's IP address from looking at a comment they made? (Short of seeing it come in on your server?)
“I think there is probably just as good of a chance that he was born in Western Canada.”
In which case the foreign arrival (to HI) the Obama clean-up crew had to hide was Granny Dunham, returning from Canada where, as was the custom of the day, she had gone to attend her only daughter’s first birth. Since the week is gone, we don’t know whose arrival fundamentally threatened/destroyed Obama’s birth narrative. Only that someone arrived in HI from a foreign country whose travels had to be kept secret. I.e.: we know Obama is lying about being born in HI, and that’s about it.
Good. Now if we could just get you to stop responding, that would be better still. You are like the sheep in "Animal Farm". All you know how to do is chant:
"Four legs good! Two legs Baaaad!
At least Winston can rise to the level of a pig.
DL is not funny
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.