Posted on 08/21/2013 8:40:51 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Over the course of just two days, the Washington Post pounded its readers with 12 "birther" stories aimed at Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Headlines included, "Can Ted Cruz Run for President?", "Canadian Born Ted Cruz Releases Birth Certificate Amid Queries if He's Eligible for Presidential Run," "Ted Cruz: I am Not a Canadian," and "No, Ted Cruz "Birthers" are Not the Same as Obama Birthers":
**snip
Though there is no legal question as to Cruz's eligibility to run for president (Cruz was born an American citizen), the Post has spent the last 48 hours bedeviling the Hispanic senator with articles obviously meant to put him on defense and plant a seed of doubt in voters' minds.
The timing of the Post's assault is also curious. By accident or design, it dovetails perfectly with a widely criticized Daily Beast hit-piece on Cruz that also focuses on and questions Cruz's past and background.
Since being elected to the United States Senate in 2012, Cruz has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of President Obama and his signature healthcare plan, ObamaCare. The Washington Post has endorsed Obama for president, and frequently used its news and editorial pages to defend ObamaCare.
In the past, the Post has also launched crusades to destroy the careers of many Republicans, including US Senate candidate George Allen, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, presidential candidate Rick Perry, and current gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli -- among others. The Post's modus operandi is similar to what Cruz is currently facing: The Post floods the zone with stories critical of the Republican in an effort to undermine their candidacy through character assassination.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Words mean things. Each word carries its own meaning. That is the nature of language. The burden of proof is on you, who claims that a word has no meaning.Those of us who have thought this through have come to realize that the Constitution did not fail to unambiguously provide a singular definite meaning of the phrase natural born Citizen as so many have claimed. To the contrary, to know the exact meaning of those words only requires the Constitution itself and basic logic. One need not look elsewhere to lay this question to rest (although the weight of as much collaborating evidence as possible might help to squash down the inevitable flood of reactionary Alinsky tactics spewing from the minions of aka obama and his handlers).There are no extraneous words in the Constitution. It is a precise legal document, carefully constructed. To claim otherwise is a slur on our Founders' literacy.
The Constitution may not tell us explicitly the definition of natural born Citizen, but, by its very phraseology, it very explicitly tells us that natural born Citizen cannot simply be the same as "born citizen."
It is absurd beyond dispute to claim that the founders would have vainly or incompetently inserted a superfluous, meaningless word into one of the primary sections of such a painstakingly deliberate document, one of our country’s very own birth documents, our Constitution. If they had meant to allow the broader category of "born citizen" they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to include the further restrictive qualification of being a natural born Citizen, which clearly must exclude certain types of mere "born citizens."
Who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature at birth, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else? The answer is obvious – those born exclusively in country jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are the natural born Citizens.
The phrase means exactly what it states, a Citizen at birth according to Natural Law, i.e., the law of nature.
What is important about the "law of nature"? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia and it simply means that the laws of nature are unchangeable. So you see, congress cannot declare a person a natural born Citizen, because no one can change the definition - it's immutable.
The idea that Ted Cruz meets the nbC clause is ludicrous, for Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen not by Natural Law, but by statutory law per the Immigration and Nationality Act.
By blood and by dirt – and the anti-American, criminal identity fraud known as obama simply does not qualify.
“So then a child of a citizen father during that era would always be NBC.”
Citizenship is not held in perpetuity. Anyone of any age can move out of the U.S. and demand a Certificate of Loss of Naturalization from the U.S. Secretary of State. Once a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is issued, NBC status is lost forever unless:
* the person is a child under 18 and the child moves back to the U.S. to rescind their Oath of Renunciation. Only a child under 18 can move back to U.S. and rescind their Oath of Renunciation within 6 months of passing their 18th birthday.
or
* the person sues in U.S. Federal Court for a Writ of Mandamus to restore the U.S. Citizenship due to fraud or error committed by the U.S. Secretary of State when the Certificate of Loss of Nationality was issued.
In the case of Marie Elg, Perkins v. Elg, Marie had her NBC status restored by order of a U.S. Federal Court after she sought a Writ because a Certificate of Loss of Nationality had been issued to her in error. Some people cite this case to imply a Certificate of Loss of Nationality cannot be issued to minors. Not true. A minor can be issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, but the Secretary of State may get sued and have to restore the individual’s U.S. Citizenship and NBC status.
Obama could have chosen to rescind his Oath of Renunciation and had his NBC status restored, but he chose not to. In 1983, Obama naturalized as a U.S. Citizen which permanently destroyed his NBC status.
He would be an even greater man if he pressed the courts for a definition of the term "natural born Citizen," as used in the COTUS with exactly that capitalization.
Constitutional questions are not about the man. They are about the Republic and the laws by which it lives ... or dies.
Too bad, so sad, wapo, but obungler broke that glass ceiling long ago. Should have insisted on following the rules when he broke them - too late now.
“Obama could have chosen to rescind his Oath of Renunciation...”
__
Of course there’s no need to rescind something that never existed in the first place.
Could you please offer a reliable source that demonstrates that Pres. Obama ever executed an Oath of Renunciation?
“Convince me that you ever went to school.”
__
LOL!! That’s it? That’s the very best you can do?
I offer you a long list of sources that contradict you and ask you to supply of list of sources that agree with you.
Changing the subject sends a clear message that you are unable to meet the challenge.
“Of course there’s no need to rescind something that never existed in the first place.”
Prove it!
Huh? Prove that there’s no need to rescind something that never existed? You can’t really be that dense, can you?
“Huh? Prove that there’s no need to rescind something that never existed?”
Why would Stanley Ann remove Obama from her family passport if he was not a U.S. Citizen prior to termination of his U.S. Citizenship? The State Department requires notification from passport holders if a family member traveling on their passport has acquired non-U.S. citizenship.
I asked for a reliable source that shows that the President executed an Oath of Renunciation. I don’t see a single source in your reply
A Google search shows that the only connections between “Obama” and “Oath of Renunciation” are attributed to SvenMagnussen.
One independent, reliable source would be enormously helpful. Otherwise, with the only source being you, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that you just made the whole thing up.
The Supreme Court only cared that Knock Jan Fat’s parents were permanently domiciled in the US. It did not care where they were born.
It's still incomprehensible to me how many of these "conservatives" want to help the democrat/media complex take out one of our best candidates. Cruz is a man devoted to the US ideal, a great communicator who understands how to present the full picture of conservatism, one who understands the positive nature of the American ideal and how to further it. He, of all people, they want to remove on a technicality that is far from clear........an easily debatable construct, yet they really want to help the libs take him out over it.
It's depressing to watch these people. Who are they? As xzins might say it's the stupidist wing of the stupid party, and they're allied with our domestic enemies.
If you missed this, you're not right in the head. Btw, haven't you caused enough trouble yet? /s
Of course it says that all that's needed is for a person to be a citizen by birth. It says that ABSOLUTELY DIRECTLY.
Once again you illustrate that you're prepared to simply call black white, and white black, and completely deny reality, in order try pitifully to maintain your false belief:
It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth.
I don't know how anyone could say more directly IT IS ONLY NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE A CITIZEN BY BIRTH, except to substitute the more modern word NECESSARY for the out-of-date synonym "requisite."
As for whether it took citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, IT DIDN'T. As another of America's FOREMOST LEGAL EXPERTS, WILLIAM RAWLE WHO WAS A MEMBER OF THE FOUNDERS' INNER CIRCLE MEETINGS LEADING UP TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, wrote:
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
Again, you couldn't be more clear. The foremost authorities in the early United States, including not only James Bayard and William Rawle, but also George Washington and nearly half of the Signers of the Constitution, say that birthers are completely full of sh*t.
It's hard to stop......
:-)
My mistake. What you said was, “That’s what most children were taught in school.”
Now, are you able to provide some evidence to support your contention? Can you provide any sources that indicate that your view was ever the prevailing 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.