Posted on 11/14/2015 2:48:45 PM PST by ScottWalkerForPresident2016
I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a "Natural-Born Citizen" in order to be President under Article II, Sec. 1.
I am disputing the bona-fides of:
Marco Rubio - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S., however his parents were un-naturalized "permanent resident" Cuban citizens when he was born.
Ted Cruz - NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother who may have natualized as a Canadian.
Bobby Jindal - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to parents who were un-naturalized citizens of Indiaa at the time of Bobby Jindal's bitth.
Rick Santorum - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick Santorum's birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
ICWYDT
Unsolved murders are yet pending. The eligibility of the president candidates re citizenship are settled and no longer at issue because we have not challenged an active president who does not have the bona fides. The question is not pending. That portion of the Constitution is null.
So, we’ve had 7 years of this undocumented immigrant president and this guy is challenging Rubio, Cruz, Jindal & Santorum? Where have you been the last 7 years?
Yes, Obama’s mom was an American citizen, but she was NOT of age to confer citizenship legally. Cruz’s mother was. End of story.
as my brother would say: a crow crapped her on a stump and the sun hatched her.
Doesn't matter anymore. The whole things screwed up, and it's not going to get fixed.
We should worry about Article II after we get judges in power who will respect the laws regarding Marriage and such.
As Lincoln said, a limb may be given up for a body, but a body should never be given up for a limb.
It doesn't matter anymore, because "We aren't in Kansas anymore Toto."
But for what it's worth, the "Natural", in "Natural Born Citizen" comes from "Natural Law", which was a legal philosophy that guided the founders in creating this nation. It is specifically referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "the laws of nature, and of nature's God...".
The US Constitution did not create citizens. Citizens were created by the Declaration of Independence. Court cases of the time period specifically refer to "July 4, 1776" as the day on which American citizenship began.
Only those born after that date could be "Natural Born".
The point here is that the guiding philosophy underpinning the Declaration of Independence should apply, not subsequent man made laws that are inconsistent with nature.
But like I said, that ship has sailed. Now anytime Congress naturalizes a class of people, (Such as the foreign born children of a single American parent), modern legal people are going to call them "natural born" when in fact they are not. They are "naturalized by statute."
Congress cannot change the rules of natural born citizens, but they can change the rules on anyone who is a citizen as a result of a law passed by congress.
Yeah, well they think two fags can get married, so I wouldn't put much stock in their opinion on anything.
Almost every country recognizes the children of their citizens as natural born citizens. In some, it’s the father and in some others, it’s the mother. In our country it’s either (or both). (This is because we’re cool about dual citizens.)
The confusion is over place of birth. A person born in the U.S. is recognized as a natural born citizen regardless of the legal status of the parents (with only the exception of the children of diplomats). This is not by law, but is only by practice. The Congress could and should change this as part of comprehensive immigration reform, so that only the children of people who are legal residents are citizens by birth.
So, Obama: his mother was a U.S. citizen. McCain, both parents. Cruz, his mother. Santorum, his mother.
Now, let’s consider Rubio. He was born here, so under current law, he’s a citizen by birth. But, his parents were also legal residents. So, were we to tighten up citizenship, people like him in the future would still be citizens by birth.
Let’s move on to Jindal. He, too, was born here, thus, a citizen by birth. As I understand it, his parents weren’t legal residents here, but were on student visas. They were legally here, but not permanent residents. So if we tightened up citizenship, people like him might not be citizens by birth in the future. For example, children of guest workers, as well as children of tourists and students who are not permanent residents. They’d be citizens of the country of their parents.
I think if we worked up a comprehensive immigration reform bill, we could cut some slack for people here illegally who have supported themselves through work and who have not committed any other crimes. Deport the criminals and the moochers, eliminate anchor babies, and seal the borders.
If you look up the Nationality act of 1952, the title of the section which makes a citizen out of a child born in a foreign country to a single American parent is "Naturalization by class."
In other words, the act regards the citizenship of foreign born children of one American parent as a "naturalization of a class of people."
The Supreme Court agreed in the decision "Rogers v Bellei", in which Aldo Mario Bellei was deemed to have lost his citizenship for failure to meet the residency requirements outlined in the statute which bestowed citizenship upon him at birth.
In other words, such citizens have statutory, artificial, man-made conditions placed upon them. (because they aren't natural citizens.)
Natural born citizens do not have any conditions which they have to meet in order to remain citizens.
Just like ridiculous interpretations of the 14th amendment created a right to abortion, gay marriage, and bans on prayer in public schools, so too has the original intent been distorted into something that was never intended.
But this is the world we live in now.
For the last 50 years perhaps, but that's because the judicial system has been infected with the Roosevelt fallout of 16 years worth of kook idiot appointees to the Federal bench. That's how we got a lot of crackpot laws.
But for the first 50 years of this nation's existence, it most certainly did not mean that.
No they wouldn't. They would claim HE was born in the United States, and Ted Cruz wasn't, and therefore HE is a natural born citizen,(This is wrong, but they don't care.) and Ted Cruz isn't.
Seriously, you do know that Scott Walker has dropped out of the race for President,(weeks ago) and that whomever is doing this has nothing to do with Scott Walker?
The Democrats won't have to. There are more than enough Republicans who will do that for them.
Only naturalized citizens, and then only by granting congress the power of naturalization.
Natural born citizens were created by the Declaration of Independence, the document which created the country.
Seriously, you can't have citizens until you have an independent country. That Independence document is the one that created the country, and therefore "citizens."
What is “official” about your notice, pray tell?
Are you under the impression I filed it? Because I did not.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
That establishes citizenship at birth. Congress can grant extra situations in which someone is granted citizenship at birth, but the Constitution does indeed have a say in this issue.
Congress is given full authority to determine naturalization procedure and law, but the only two forms of citizenship that is contemplated by the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, are citizenship by birth (whether given by the Constitution or by laws of Congress) and citizenship by naturalization.
There is not a third form of citizenship.
All of them except Santorum would fall under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Under that they're natural born citizens.
My question is where is the “official” notice unless a formal protest has been filed under applicable regulations or law of a state by someone with standing in that state to file such a protest or give such notice?
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.