Posted on 01/17/2016 1:43:21 AM PST by Happy Rain
Banned by Breitbart
I'm truly shocked to hear this because I find that Breitbart, AKA Restless Patriot, is pretty much fair and balanced when it comes to supporting both TRUMP and CRUZ, and I offer the following graphics from their Face Book site, which were posted within the past 36 hours AND up to 10 minutes ago. (I use several on our FReepathon threads, but haven't yet used any of these recent ones).
So simple, yet so profound a statement of truth.
Like I said, under the logic of just about every birther on this board, the oldest three were born to a non-citizen parent (Ivana didn’t become a citizen until 1988); ergo, not Natural Born. Like Rubio and Jindal, who were born to non-citizens on US soil, they’re “anchor babies”. I frankly don’t see how it’s any different. We hear it all the time - “Natural born means 2 US citizen parents on American soil! Make America great again!” Sauce for the goose, bro.
Absurd positions lead to absurd situations.
Great graphics!
“He says it’s a valid concern.”
What do you mean by “it’s”? What are you saying is a valid concern?
“the text does NOT say. It does not say, Springsteen-like, that a president must be “born in the United States.” Yet it would have been so easy to say that, had that been the founders’ legal meaning and the legal purpose!”
The learned professor is soliciting voters to commit an unconstitutional election fraud in that statement. He is obligated to know the Constitution explicitly stated a Senator, a Member of the House of Representatives, and a Supreme Court needed to be no more than a U.S. citizen, whereas the President and the Vice President must be a natural born citizen. Under the code of statutory construction the courts must give separate meanings for the two terms, citizen versus natural born citizen. The professor is trying to deceive the readers into believing the false notion the two terms can be read as equivalents, when the established law adamantly denies that ability. The professor says, “it would have been so easy to say that, had that been the founders’ legal meaning and the legal purpose!” On the contrary, the Founding Fathers did make the meaning and legal purpose clear, the candidate for the office had to meet the same standard for birth with no allegiance at birth or after birth to a foreign sovereign, which is the definition common to that of a natural born subject with the Naturalization Act of 1541 and the definition of a natural born citizen in 1776 before and after the adoption of the Constitution of 1789.
As Rush (who, I have a feeling is going to join Levin as personae non grata pretty soon) would say, I’m using absurdity to highlight the absurd. If Rubio and Jindal are anchor babies, then so are the Trump kids. On the other hand, if Donnie’s citizenship alone is sufficient to pass NBC status, then so is Eleanor’s. As a woman I would think you would support that whole “equal protection” thing - it’s also in the Constitution.
Apologies on the bro thing.
“Mark Levin studiously avoids the term Natural Born Citizen and spends a lot of energy proving that Cruz is a Citizen therefore he is eligible. That is the first time I have ever heard Levin sounding weaselly and has disconcerted me to no end. There was a very skillful argument made by an FR poster yesterday that did not convince me because it did not refer to original intent as expressed outside of the Constitution itself that Levin could have made and, with his expertise on things Constitutional, might well have pointed out things I have not known but he did not do that. Instead he erected a straw man which he destroyed. It will be hard to listen to Levin uncritically again.”
In the same vein, if Cruz had something definitive on the subject, he could have said it already. I suppose it’s possible he’s keeping it up his sleeve, but my guess is this is costing him support at a critical time. Saying he’s not taking legal advice from Trump may have been a popular answer, but it hasn’t made the question go away.
Regardless of what the law may say or mean, is there any reason to think this particular Supreme Court couldn’t decide anything they want to?
“Now tell me who has a screw loose.”
You do, because you are prominently displaying not only your ignorance, you are also flaunting your willful desire to be ignorant.
For example, you were supposed to have learned that the Constitution granted the Congress only the power to legislate, that is to make Federal statutory laws.
Next, the phrase in the Constitution that says “natural born citizen” was supposed to have alerted you to the fact that it is a terminology arising from Natural Law. If you had learned in school to lookup words and word phrases you are not familiar with, you would have soon discovered that Natural Law is the exact opposite of statutory law, also known as positive law. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the Congress the power to use statutory law to make natural law, because it would be an oxymoron (nonsensical effort). The two legal concepts are entirely incompatible with each other.
So where does natural law come from? The first natural law arose from unwritten tradition and common law practices. later, some codified laws, the statutes, incorporated some of the principles of natural law, but the natural law itself defined by the general international acceptance of shared principles discussed in legal treatises, international treaties, international and domestic customary law, and in the decisions of courts of law that apply those principles. The principles used to define a natural born subject and natural born citizen are included in those legal treatises and case law precedents.
Confirm this by noting the absence of any statute in the U.S. code where Congress authorized the U.S. Government to birth a natural born citizen. t simply is not there, because the attributes required to qualify as a Constitutional natural born citizen are inherent in the child being born with two citizen parents owing their allegiance solely to the sovereign of the domain in which the birth took place. In other words, by the very nature of the birth, the child can have no other allegiance by the doctrines of jus sanguine or by jus soli. This principle was derived from the restrictions placed on the different forms of Roman citizenship and the citizenship in other cultures following the Roman Empire. This eventually traced forward in time to England’s Naturalization Act of 1541, when England’s Parliament first enacted a statute. This statute that granted English commoner fathers the right to naturalize their children born abroad from England the right to naturalize their alien born children as English subjects, with permanent allegiance to the King of England despite having been born in a foreign sovereign’s domain and allegiance.
While the naturalization Act of 1541 finally granted English commoners the ability to naturalize their alien born children at birth, these children did not enjoy all of the rights and duties enjoyed by the children who were not naturalized, i.e. the natural born children of England. for one difference, these children naturalized form birth wee not allowed to serve on the Privy Council, as military officers, or in other public offices. when it came time to draft the Constitution, the authors decided to continue the English tradition only with respect to the office of the President and the Office of the Vice President.
“I don’t think it was how to define the term.”
Of course it was. Every child is taught to use a dictionary, thesaurus, encyclopedia, and books on the subject matter.
Can you tell me which part of the Constitution explains “natural born?
Hint: start with Article II, Section 1 which states, “No Person except a Natural Born Citizen, or ...”
I cannot seem to find a definition of Natural Born, can you?
Tell me what you learned in Civics. I don’t think it was how to define the term. Now tell me who has a screw loose.
*****************************************************************************
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
The CRS report is a fraudulent document written by Jack Maskell to provide ineligible Barack Hussein Obama and Congress with the excuse they needed to avoid confronting Obama’s illegal election, John McCain’s illegal candidacy, and the forthcoming Republican candidates we see now. I could rip the report apart myself with some considerable time spent on the effort, but there are already numerous websites that have done so to varying extents. See one of the better ones that describe the logical fallacies in detail at:
Sunday, June 2, 2013
The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizenâ€
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 2, 2013
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html
Suffice it to observe that anyone who tries to use that document as evidence of anything is relying upon a known and notorious political fraud with no more validity than Dan Rather’s memos On President Bush.
A tourist who is a U.S. Citizen in a foreign country is required by statutes/law to report the birth to the U.S. Embassy/Consulate.
__________________________________________________________
This is correct and there would have been a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) issued.
I do not understand why Cruz hasn’t released this to settle the matter.
My youngest was born in Okinawa when my husband was in the Air Force. We were required to report his birth to the embassy and we were given a CRBA that served as his birth certificate.
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.