Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind
You've made your point. And I agree that SCOTUS is awful, and unpredictable to the extent that we are no longer a nation of laws, except for routine matters.

-- I am USING MY HEAD and THINKING FOR MYSELF. --

I understand. I was trying to steer a tight discussion to figure out if you are in the innocently ignorant or willfully misleading group. Based on the number of mistakes you made in your analysis of the case (you got the case right, just didn't really apply it to Cruz - you gave the citizenship stripping part attention, and that part is irrelevant to the Cruz situation), and what appears to be a good faith an earnest (and civil) answer, I think it's innocent error.

So long. No hard feelings.

170 posted on 01/14/2016 4:23:34 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

RE: Based on the number of mistakes you made in your analysis of the case (you got the case right, just didn’t really apply it to Cruz

Oh yes I did, and I said that the case should not apply to Cruz. In fact it should not have applied to Aldo Bellei himself.

I did say that there are many times I disagree with the SCOTUS and I cited several of their decisions. This is one of them.

RE: you gave the citizenship stripping part attention, and that part is irrelevant to the Cruz situation), and what appears to be a good faith an earnest (and civil) answer, I think it’s innocent error.

Let’s go back to the case you mentioned:

The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis).

Here’s what I disagree with — The Revised Statute of 1874 SHOULD NOT EVEN APPLY TO Bellei.

What should apply to Bellei is the understanding of the term “natural born” as used in Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution.

In other words, did the framers already have an understanding of what the term meant when they wrote it?

If so, then THAT understanding is a basic constitutional right that should apply to Bellei, not the subsequent act written nearly a hundred years later.

In other words, Bellie is being treated like a green card holder (green card holders are required to fulfill 5 year residency requirements), not a natural born citizen by the SCOTUS. That SHOULD NOT have been the case.

Thankfully, Congress acknowledged the mistake of that provision and repealed it in 1978.


185 posted on 01/15/2016 7:07:44 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson