Please Make Your Donations Today.
Our Final FReepathon of the Year!!!
You Can Help Drastically Shorten FReepathons by Donating Monthly!
VERY Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!
Please Sign Up to Donate Monthly!
Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Silly rabbit, the US Law “tail” cannot wag the constitutional Dog.
Arms, and then it’s your turn:
Arms
Webster’s 1913 Dictionary
n. pl. 1. Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.
He lays down his arms, but not his wiles.
- Milton.
Three horses and three goodly suits of arms.
- Tennyson.
2. The deeds or exploits of war; military service or science.
3. (Law) Anything which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another with; an aggressive weapon.
4. (Her.) The ensigns armorial of a family, consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, etc., as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.
5. (Falconry) The legs of a hawk from the thigh to the foot.
Yep. According to an attorney friend, Rogers v. Bellei is no longer considered “case law.” I refer to it though because both the majority and dissent make good points and it provides good insight into modern judicial mindset (i.e. during our lifetime) toward statutory citizenship and Congress’ power to establish a uniform blah, blah, blah.
Thank you very much for the facts. Much appreciated and hope everyone learns from your comments.
No. Let's flip this around on YOU.
YOU post the DEFINITIVE phrase from the US Constitution that establishes that birth in the United States alone makes a person a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be the President of the United States.
And when your done with that, YOU post the DEFINITIVE phrase from the US Constitution that establishes that birth in a foreign country to a single American citizen, makes them a "natural born citizen" and therefore eligible to be the President of the United States.
It appears you have the harder task, because your proof for the first example above, would tend to contradict your proof for the second one following it.
Let me play devil’s advocate on that statement for a minute.
If we believe that the 10th Amendment leaves all extra-constituional matters to the States or the People, then don’t our elected representatives have the power to define terms that are not explicitly defined within the Constitution?
And tell me what child born in the US to American parents would have lost his citizenship for failing to act if he had lived in a foreign country for the rest of his life?
Tell me how an undisputed "natural born citizen" would lose his citizenship for failing to act?
So tell me, do you believe, given US Law right now, that Senator Cruz is eligible to be President of the United States?
And what's more, Justice Waite wrote this while they were specifically discussing THE 14TH AMENDMENT, meaning it was deliberately directed at the meaning of the 14th amendment.
It is explicitly stating that 14th amendment citizenship is NOT natural born citizenship.
LOL.
Check his qualifications on your own. I have no time for argumentative pests like you.
Prior to 1922? I don't think so.
Don't care what the modern PRACTICE is. The current law does not affect the meaning of a law written in 1787. Prior to 1922, American women Married to foreigners in foreign countries did NOT have American children. They had children of their husbands nationality.
“And congress has the power to change it?”
It doesn’t matter if they change the constitution, it matters if they can change the laws regulating it.
You can’t possibly argue that they don’t. If that is the case then let’s see you carry a gun in DC.
Appointed to the office of Solicitor General of Texas by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott,[3][41] Cruz served in that position from 2003 to 2008.[19][35]DiogenesLamp,
Cruz has authored more than 80 United States Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments, including nine before the United States Supreme Court.[3][11][21] Cruz's record of having argued before the Supreme Court nine times is more than any practicing lawyer in Texas or any current member of Congress.[42] Cruz has commented on his nine cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court: "We ended up year after year arguing some of the biggest cases in the country. There was a degree of serendipity in that, but there was also a concerted effort to seek out and lead conservative fights."[42]
In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz drafted the amicus brief signed by attorneys general of 31 states, which said that the D.C. handgun ban should be struck down as infringing upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.[21][43] Cruz also presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[21][44]
In addition to his success in Heller, Cruz has successfully defended the constitutionality of Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds before the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 5-4 in Van Orden v. Perry.[11][21][35]
In 2004, Cruz was involved in another high-profile case, which was Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.[11][35] In Newdow, Cruz wrote a U.S. Supreme Court brief on behalf of all 50 states which argued that a non-custodial parent does not have standing in court to sue to stop a public school from requiring its students to recite of the Pledge of Allegiance.[11][35] The Supreme Court upheld the position of Cruz’s brief in a 9-0 decision.
Cruz served as lead counsel for the state and successfully defended the multiple litigation challenges to the 2003 Texas congressional redistricting plan in state and federal district courts and before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 5-4 in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry.[35][45]
Cruz also successfully defended, in Medellin v. Texas, the State of Texas against an attempt by the International Court of Justice to re-open the criminal convictions of 51 murderers on death row throughout the United States.[3][11][21][35]
Cruz has been named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America,[41][46] by The National Law Journal as one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America,[47][48] and by Texas Lawyer as one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.[49][50]
“Prior to 1922, American women Married to foreigners in foreign countries did NOT have American children. They had children of their husbands nationality. “
Both the laws of 1790 and 1795 did not say what you claim. They ensured citizenship to the child based on the woman’s citizenship.
No my friend. It is the intent of the DELEGATES that has to be the determination of the definition of Natural born citizen. No one else created the law. No one else gets to say what it means.
The opinion of anyone who wasn't there is hearsay.
“the US Law “tail” cannot wag the constitutional Dog.”
“cannot”? It does. Again, let’s see you carry a gun in DC and claim the 2nd amendment prohibits infringing on that right.
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.