Posted on 09/07/2013 12:03:25 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Damn the torpedoes!
You are just full of it, I have never pushed a moderate Republican or any Libertarian or Democrat in my life.
Trying to bring Jim into these threads and do your political purity cleansing for you is shameful.
There will be exactly two choices in the next election for President. Democratic Progressive or some version of GOP, we have to pick one or stay home, write in is not an option and I doubt third party ever will be, certainly not in my lifetime.
I stand by my statement, that it would be more honest of you to just say I will support and vote for Ted Cruz if he runs, and leave the rest of your condescending legal blather out of the discussion.
“Given how harshly Christie was attacking Rand Paul (and by proxy Cruz) recently, that’s the biggest sign Cruz/Paul will be in the race. The liberals running the GOP fear Cruz/Paul. They fear the thought of Conservatives getting any power in the GOP.”
Jabba the christie will eventually emerge as the gop frontrunner. Which is a good thing in my view as it will spark a final divorce between conservatives and the gop wing of the uniparty. And we might finally get a second party as a result.
Ronald Reagan the best President in modern times had 8 years as Governor. Enough said!
I already did with Minor vs Happersett and you can't deal with it.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."So in fact, they were not resolving the question of the full spectrum of the CLASSES of citizen who were considered "Natural Born", just that there could be no doubt that citizens born of 2 US citizen parents, at the time of birth, there could be no doubt they were "Natural Born".
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]So, the Supreme Court at that time also stated there was no need to be on any land that was part of the United States, and in effect, implied that it only took one parent, the father, being a US Citizen at birth to convey the status of "Natural Born" to this new US Citizen.
Well done. Since this nation’s founding, the US has had tens of millions of its citizens stationed overseas, either in the military or civilian positions in the government. To think that the Framers wanted to exclude any child born to these citizens, merely because their parents were serving the nation overseas, from ever being eligible to be president, is just plain dumb.
Great post! Thanks for the ping!
Please remove me from your Cruz ping list. He’s a great guy but he’s not a NBC. Live in your delusion, fine with me, but I don’t want to get involved with it.
There fixed it for you. You need to pay attention to the words.
just that there could be no doubt that citizens born of 2 US citizen parents, at the time of birth, there could be no doubt they were "Natural Born".
And you skipped the words "in a country of ..." and "within the jurisdiction".
Those born in a foreign country are not even discussed in this passage, just the first class natural born citizen and then "this class".
And as to "this class" there were doubts among authorities that they were even citizens.
No wonder you are confused -- your reading skills need improvement.
Nope -- it doesn't say that because if the father was a citizen then so was the mother. It was citizenship by marriage for the wife.
Furthermore the 1790 Act was replaced by the 1795 Act. The exemption re natural born citizenship was only for the "period of the adoption of the Constitution" per Article II which ended with the 1795 Act.
were declared to be citizens also.
"citizens" -- not "natural born citizens".
Read more carefully.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
[n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]
"citizens" -- not "natural born citizens".Actually, I think it is you that needs to read more carefully.
Read more carefully.
No it is not because if it were true then you would find the words "natural born citizen" in all the subsequent naturalization acts but it is not there in the 1795, 1798, 1802 and all subsequent ones.
That was only for the 5 year period that ended in 1795 coinciding with the period of the adoption of the Consituttion per Article II.
Justice Waite is merely pointing out another class of citizen who is made a citizen by the country's naturalization acts.
Justice Waite notes atleast three classes of citizen:
1]natural born citizens -- parents are citizens and born within the country. No doubts about their citizenship.
2]children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. Doubts re their citizenship.
3]children born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States. These are citizens by virtue of naturalization acts of Congress. At any time Congress could change the rules and thus change their rights to citizenship -- but not so with natural born citizens.
So you totally ignored the so-called lack of experience of Abraham Lincoln?
A lot of FREEPERS don’t like Abe Lincoln....be careful.
Not pinged, quoted.
I have absolutely no quarrel with any position that Ted Cruz espouses so far, and I don't expect to have any.
I am loath to participate in these speculations so early when there is so much that can happen between now and November 2016.
I will not however change my position on NBC as I doubt you would either.
As I stated, there will be exactly two people to pick from in November 2016, one will be a Democratic Progressive, and the other will be come form of Republican, any other option such as write in or third party will be irrelevant.
I have absolutely no control over who the Parties promote and certify as their candidate and neither do you, other than the one legal vote you are entitled to.
If I am alive in 2016 I will again vote against the Democrat who has always been the worst of two evils, as I have ever since 1960 when I was first old enough to vote. (21 in those days)
I proudly voted for Reagan and would have voted for Palin and I guess I did by proxy, because I certainly would not have voted for McCain without her on the ticket.
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.