Posted on 01/17/2016 3:30:54 PM PST by Walt Griffith
Do you like suprise endings?
Can you read and keep track of details?
If so this is a read you could enjoy.
You can jump to the end and get the ending, but you will not know how the court arrived there.
This case will take you back through common law to Roman law and beyond to arrive at it's conclusion.
Enjoy!
That was said In Dicta and not part of the decision.
I’ve read the entire case....holding and dissent.
Pretty dam% dry and unforunately not significant whatsoever in being determinate one way or another on Cruz’s eligibility.
So, was that considered, “natural born?”
No, we're all a bunch of retards that need you to explain things to us.
Do you like suprise (sic) endings?
I like surprise ending so surprise me, just do it early it the thread.
“What does it mean to be a natural born citizen?
Most legal experts contend it means someone is a citizen from birth and doesn’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.
If that’s the definition, then Cruz is a natural born citizen by being born to an American mother and having her citizenship at birth. The Congressional Research Service, the agency tasked with providing authoritative research to all members of Congress, published a report after the 2008 election supporting the thinking that a ‘natural born’ citizenship means citizenship held at birth.
There are many legal and historical precedents to strongly back up this argument, experts have said.
Those precedents were the subject of a recent op-ed in the Harvard Law Review by two former solicitor generals of opposing parties, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, who worked for Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, respectively. They wrote that ‘natural born’ had a longstanding definition dating back to colonial times.
British common law recognized that children born outside of the British Empire remained subjects, and were described by law as natural born, Katyal and Clement wrote.
The framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like natural born, since the (British) statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War, they said.
Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution.â€
“The U.S. recognizes citizenship according to two fundamental principles: jus soli (right of birthplace), and jus sanguinis (right of blood). Under jus soli, a person receives American citizenship by virtue of being born in the United States. By contrast, jus sanguinis confers citizenship on those born to at least one U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. A person who does not qualify under either of these principles may seek U.S. citizenship through the process of naturalization.”
It was included in the final of “United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)” and is a part of the story of the case. That is what counts here.
That paragraph does not appear in the case. Do you have a cite for that paragraph?
But let me think about it a little more. Everyone knew Washington would be President so I would look at his status first.
Does not apply to Cruz.
CITIZEN and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Cruz was NOT born in the United States.
His parents WERE NOT RESIDENT in the US at the time of his birth.
BOTH if his parents were NOT US Citizens at the time of his birth.
A tree is a plant, but not all plants are trees.
Jefferson was quite explicit on the matter of citizenship.
George Washington, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin ALL note the dependence on Vattel’s Law of Nations during their deliberations on Framing the Constitution.
That does not mean it doesn't exist.
this was without a doubt the worst reasoned and worst supported decision the Supreme Court ever made.
The dissent is interesting, though.
Speak for yourself.
Actually arguments used in the justification of a ruling are NOT determinate of anything.
They are no more significant than a legal footnote in their ramifications.
Blabbered about inconsequentially.
Is every opinion of the Supreme Court infallible?
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.