So long, kabumpo (Posting History)
Hat Tip to SunkenCiv
Concern troll runs smack into Jim Thompson who sorta politely escorts it off the site
Be concerned about this, seditionist
FReepmail TheOldLady to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list.
Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.
"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Wow.
No, Palin seemed real.
It is a FACT the 1790 Act said 'natural born citizen'.
It is a FACT the The Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the 1790 Act.
It is a FACT the phrase 'natural born' was replaced with Citizen of the United States.
While the purpose of the change might be speculatory, the FACT is that is was changed.
-----
Do you seriously think they all decided that while they were busy establishing embassies, writing public laws, funding the government, passing bills, appointing diplomats, providing for forts, ports and arsenals, and basically establishing the entire foundation for the federal government......they figured they'd take a little time to replace a term with one that 'meant' the exact same thing?
The Founders were Masters of the written word, so such a spurious purpose is nonsensical in the extreme. The only logical conclusion would be that the changing of the language was a purposeful act -
just like the usage of the 2 different terms in the Constitution was.
I have. Read Article I’s section about Congress’ authority to control naturalization and to make all laws necessary to bring about the rules they make.
Then give me the section of the Constitution that provides the definition for “natural born”.
The Jeopardy Clock is ticking.
Both laws in 1790 and 1795 have native citizenship being by blood descent and by right of birth.
Now show me the line in the Constitution that defines “natural born”.
IMO this falls under the 'anchor baby' or 'wet foot-dry foot' policy and opens the door to any and all Hispanics or other nationalities who have one American parent to rule our country.
Maybe this is the intent, after all.
LOL! you're trying to purposely misphrase the question to get a predetermined answer.
Show ME the part of the Constitution that gives the federal organ any authority concerning citizenship.
This remind you of anything??
A T-Rex with a .... what the hell is that firearm? Kinda AK, kinda AR... I guess they had different Semiauto’s back in the Jurassic. :)
Somebody tell me why this wouldn’t work, so we can figure out how it could be MADE to work.
Nebraska’s eligibility bill was based on a de Vattel definition of NBC. It required Presidential candidates at the primary level to provide proof that they were born on US soil to 2 parents who were at the time US citizens, and if they did not present lawful evidence of that they would be denied placement on the ballot. The purpose for writing it that way - and this is what I argued at a committee hearing - was so that the constitutionality of the law could be challenged so the country could have a legally binding definition of “natural born citizen” and potential candidates and their supporters from both parties would be able to know their eligibility status BEFORE they spent a fortune on a campaign. A severability clause was included so that whatever WAS constitutional would stand. The bill itself would pose no threat to anybody, and is not intended to pose a threat to anybody. The purpose for it was to FORCE the courts to rule on the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen”, and to require candidates to actually legally prove their eligibility before being allowed on the ballot.
In Nebraska there is a big snag. The guy who heads the committee on government affairs is a liberal from Omaha and he will never bring the bill out of committee.
But if we had a conservative state where something like this could pass, and it could be passed in the next legislative session, for instance, that would give time for the issue to go through the courts before 2016. The time for people to start rallying legislative support in their state would be right now, because deadlines for proposed bills creep up very quickly.
My question about the effectiveness of this strategy primarily hinges on whether the DOJ would have to challenge the Constitutionality of the law immediately, before the law went into effect. And would Ted Cruz, for instance, be able to challenge the law if the DOJ didn’t - asking for an injunction against the law until its constitutionality was determined, on the basis that he could wrongfully be denied placement on Nebraska’s ballot in the 2016 primary? If the DOJ wouldn’t challenge the constitutionality of the law but Ted Cruz did I would contribute to his legal defense.
My point isn’t to argue one definition of NBC over another. My purpose is to force the courts to do their job and define NBC now, so that a compromised SCOTUS has no ability to wait until after we have elected a conservative President and then boot him out by defining NBC to exclude him.
I think everybody here should be able to agree that we need protection from that.
I’m pinging a few lawyers in the hopes that they can help me know whether this is a flawed legal strategy. We have to do something. If anybody knows other lawyers who could give good advice, please ping them to this also. We also need to know where we would have the best chances of passing an eligibility bill like the one we fashioned in Nebraska, that would force the courts to define NBC. Is there a state where the chair of the committee that would handle this understands the importance of having clear definitions, to be fair to everybody?
Article I, Section 8
ping to this one and to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3084995/posts?page=431#431
I believe the time to act is now, but we need to get our act together to make it work. Please check it out and let me know what you think.
Non specific. Try again.
Section 8.
The Congress shall have power... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, ...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Signed up November 5, 2008, perhaps as one of Moby’s crew?
I agree.
So where is Congress’ definition of “natural born citizen” then? If they’ve got one then why is there any question of what the term means? Why does everybody acknowledge that there is no passage of Constitution or law that expressly says that anybody born on the country’s soil or born to anybody who is a US citizen is a “natural born citizen”?
In the end, as passionate as we can all be about this subject, our passion means nothing. What the Constitution says, at this point, means nothing. The only thing that means anything is what SCOTUS is going to rule, and Hillary Clinton is going to challenge Ted Cruz’ eligibility if Cruz ever beats her to win the Presidency. That is just a fact. Can we agree on that? And when she challenges it, the decision will fall to John Roberts. Can we agree on that? And John Roberts is owned by the Obama regime and the handlers for the Obama regime. Can we agree on that? And they will tell Roberts to do whatever he has to, to get rid of Cruz or any other man or woman who has the gumption to do what is necessary to save this country. Can we agree on that?
It’s fun to debate stuff, but if the debate keeps us from doing what has to be done to save the country, it is DANGEROUS debate. We can’t afford that kind of debate. It is absolutely imperative that we get a court ruling on the definition of NBC so we know the rules when we choose our Presidential candidate. If you feel certain that your understanding is correct then you should welcome that. If somebody arguing with you feels certain of their view then they should welcome that. We should ALL welcome a ruling by SCOTUS. But the key, critical, absolutely essential aspect of that ruling is that it needs to come BEFORE the 2016 primary, which means we need to get busy and focus on getting ‘r done.
How can we do that? Everybody here needs to be asking how we can get a definition locked in stone BEFORE the primary of 2016 so the wily critters can’t make all our effort wasted through one single legal blow.
My suggestion is at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3084995/posts?page=431#431 . Please, please, please, can we discuss a strategy that will work? As fun as the circular firing squad is, it will end up hurting us. We need to work together for SOLUTIONS.
I have to admit, that is the most cogent argument for the Cruz eligibility question I have yet to hear.
Thank you for clearing the fog.
That's right, all the authority they have concerning citizenship is that of making a uniform rule for creating naturalized citizens.
Since Constitutional authority must be enumerated and there is no authority contained therein to create natural born citizens, the federal government has no legitimate authority to do so.
--------
Even the Founders knew that. It's why they didn't 'proclaim' everyone to BE Natural born citizens.
They naturalized themselves with an Act that 'entitled' them to the rights, privileges and immunities OF natural born citizens.
……andPhillip Theobald & John de Polerisky, upon taking the oath of allegiance to this Commonwealth before two Justices of the Peace, & paying to the Secretary the fee in such case required, shall be deemed adjuded and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born Citizens.
Acts and Resolves of Acts and Resolves Passed by the General Court of Massachusetts
Page 39
This is something they and they alone were entitled to do. Not because the founding generation were born 'in' the country, but because the country was *born* into them.
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.