Posted on 03/10/2016 9:12:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
A naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. Please give me your understanding of these two terms.
In post 35 I quoted from Wong Kim Ark and formatted the text to make it easy to understand. Please explain how it is that “Cruz was made a citizen by the authority of Congress, not thru naturalization”. Please square that with the quote from Wong Kim Ark.
Ray76 is quoting word for word exactly the same case that you cited. So if he isn’t “reading it right,” neither are you.
Constitutional axiom? You talk funny.
Nah, no need to hyperventilate. Only God knows what will lose the election. We just have to do what’s right within our own sphere of control, and let God worry about the outcome. Trying to “macro-manage” the election by throwing a reliable conservative under the bus in favor of someone we can’t trust doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s really crazy.
Besides, as a pro-lifer, I have a commitment not to vote for anyone, ever, who sanctions the destruction of innocent human life. Trump believes a baby can be killed if the dad is a rapist. I can’t vote for that, not in this or any other lifetime. As between the two, Cruz is the only one I can vote for. Neither is perfect, but one is impossible. Think about it. With the megaphone Trump has, what great things he could do to change people’s opinions on protecting innocent babies - it would be YUGE. But instead, he takes the most controversial part out, opts for the path of least resistance and therefore the most votes. We have no idea what he will do once he’s closed the “deal.”
Peace,
SR
You should have gone and read the entire article...
“In the end, Elliott lost his case. Later in the day, Pellegrini issued an order leaving Cruz on the ballot, finding legal and statutory history that shows that a “natural born citizen” includes any person who is a U.S. citizen from birth.”
He argues that the courts cannot settle this case? What issue have the courts EVER declared to be entirely within the realm of Congress? Only this one, hmmmmm.... 2D, Cruz was born in Canada... Get it?
Huh? The citizen parent in all three cases, the prince, Obama, and Cruz, in all three cases, the citizen parent is the mother.
Flopped because Obama was arguing that he was born in America. Cruz is arguing that he was born in Canada... and that it doesn’t matter.
The judge shows his bias: “There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.”
There are more important things than candidate eligibility. Don’t waste my time with a specious issue.
It’s not worth me fussing about. I think some of you are over-reading the case, and not understanding the word “naturalized,” and are coming to the wrong conclusion. But who cares, because a judge is going to decide this. Plus I am voting for Trump, so why would I even care? And, I don’t think anything I say is going to convince you, so when the judge decides, just let me know and we will have our answer. I am not losing any sleep over this.
The Framers didn’t use the phrase natural born citizen without understanding that it had a specific meaning. Can Congress change the meaning of the phrase without striking it by amendment and inserting a new phrase? Why would they do that anyway? The whole purpose of the language was to separate the mere citizen from the citizenship that was unassailable. What makes Cruz’ citizenship unassailable? Easy to answer... NOTHING.
I wonder if the decision will be appealed by either side? Both sides lost something here.
2) If you want to invoke God, then what does God say about this subject of electing a leader,
Deu 17:14 When you come to the land which YHWH your Elohim is giving you, and shall possess it and shall dwell in it, and you shall say, ‘Let me set a sovereign over me like all the gentiles that are around me,’ 15 you shall certainly set a sovereign over you whom YHWH your Elohim shall choose. Set a sovereign over you from among your brothers, you are not allowed to set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
Biblical genealogy flows from the father to his children. Biblical wives are of the same nationality as their husbands. The Library of Congress states that from 1790 to 1950, wives and children followed the nationality of their husbands/fathers respectively. Even the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act states this.
Therefore, you are simply uneducated in the citizenship laws of the United States and also that of your bible.
I was just pointing out that your remarks are completely illogical. Nobody but an insane person would take them seriously, unless they were treating you for a mental illness.
I am sorry. I read that, but I thought from the comments that there was one state where it was still open. I must have misread something. My mistake.
Over time, I would say that the entire substantive effect of the constitution has been subverted by the very government that was created by the constitution. All three branches are in on the subversion. The government has all the legitimacy of the mafia, and for exactly the same reason.
There are states that are still open and this ruling will definitely influence those cases yet to be heard.
My sentiments exactly
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.