Replies

There is no distinction in law between a “Citizen of the United States at Birth” and a “Natural-born Citizen.” One is an 18th century term, the other is a 19th century term, but they are synonymous.

“The Constitution does not say in words who shall be a natural-born citizen. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”—Minor v. Happersett (1874). One of the “elsewheres” who shall be a “natural-born citizen” can be ascertained is statutory law as codified in the U.S. Code.

Both Triers of Fact and members of Congress are very used to interpreting and applying the legal language of “convoluted” (to laypersons such as yourself) statutes.

I can guarantee you with 100% metaphysical certitude that if Senator Cruz decides to run, judges will rule him to be Article II, Section 1 eligible and Congress will pass a bi-partisan “sense of the Senate” resolution confirming his eligibility just as they did in 2008 with Senate Resolution 511 for Panama Canal Zone-born John Sidney McCain.

There is no distinction in law between a “Citizen of the United States at Birth” and a “Natural-born Citizen.” One is an 18th century term, the other is a 19th century term, but they are synonymous.

According to what or whom?? The Minor court didn't use the form term, but they definitely made a distinction between being born in the country and being born in the country to citizen parents. One class, the latter, was exclusively characterized as natural-born citizens.

“The Constitution does not say in words who shall be a natural-born citizen. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”—Minor v. Happersett (1874). One of the “elsewheres” who shall be a “natural-born citizen” can be ascertained is statutory law as codified in the U.S. Code.

There's nothing in Minor that says that it can be ascertained under statutory law. Where are you getting these ideas from?? In the context, Minor used NBC as an exclusive characterization of those person born to citizen parents. The "elsewhere" was a verbatim recitation of the Law of Nations definition of natural citizens.

I can guarantee you with 100% metaphysical certitude that if Senator Cruz decides to run, judges will rule him to be Article II, Section 1 eligible and Congress will pass a bi-partisan “sense of the Senate” resolution confirming his eligibility just as they did in 2008 with Senate Resolution 511 for Panama Canal Zone-born John Sidney McCain.

Nonsense. McCain's eligibility fit the Law of Nations criteria by being born to parents who were in the Armies of the State. Cruz's father was mot a U.S. citizen, while both of McCain's parents were. There's no legal foundation for declaring Cruz to be Constitutionally eligible.

There is no distinction in law between a “Citizen of the United States at Birth” and a “Natural-born Citizen.” One is an 18th century term, the other is a 19th century term, but they are synonymous.

Okay, here you are again, repeating the same demonstrably wrong theory. If you persist in repeating it, I'm going to persist in asking you how Bellei LOST HIS CITIZENSHIP. Obviously there *IS* a distinction.

Your aversion to discussing Bellei moves you out of the category of "objective but misinformed" and into the category of "advocacy for a specific preferred outcome." You are fully aware that Bellei blows your theory to h3ll, and that's why you don't want to discuss it.

So once again, if I don't report for Induction, will I lose my citizenship?