Elk v Wilkins verified two classes of citizenship under the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
If someone can convince a court or Congress that Ted Cruz or Barack Obama before him are naturalized as opposed to Citizens of the United States at Birth, I would be willing to go along with that ruling but as of today that hasn’t happened.
Is that an echo or are you disagreeing with the two classes of citizenship stated by Elk and Wong Kim Ark? Those cases state the following two classifications:
-- If someone can convince a court or Congress that Ted Cruz or Barack Obama before him are naturalized as opposed to Citizens of the United States at Birth, I would be willing to go along with that ruling but as of today that hasn't happened. --
We've been over this ground just a few hours ago. I said that courts are not going to apply the constitution when that leads against the globalist agenda, and that independent of what the courts do, it is possible to review precedent on the subject just for grins. I cited Rogers v. Bellei, which you attempted to distinguish, then roughly dodged every contention I made after that.
You are as slippery as Obama. ;-)
A citizen of the U.S. at birth is not the same as a natural born citizen. You are referring to the naturalization section, Section 1, of the 14th Amendment. Nowhere does the 14th Amendment speak of natural born citizens, jurisdiction or not. Its author, Congressman John Bingham, is explicit speaking to the House in 1866, “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….” Bingham’s “...born in the U.S. of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty...” also eliminates dual or triple citizens such as Cruz - Cuba, Canada, U.S.
This “citizen at birth” simply means one needn’t file paperwork. It doesn’t apply to Cruz until Congress passed one of dozens of modifications based upon the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Amendment, giving foreign-born children citizenship if one of their parents was a citizen. To twist interpretation created to insure the allegiance of our president so that Jordan’s King, Winston Churchill, and surely thousands of others would be eligible is a sad attack on our foundation, the Constitution. Some thirty attempts to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 have failed so people who wish to weaken the Constitution like Ted Cruz, take advantage of ignorance.
Glen Beck once warned people to read original sources. Now he won’t quote Thomas Paine, or John Marshall, or Morrison Waite, or Horace Gray, or Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice who had his own run at testing article II and lost to Woodrow Wilson, having been exposed because his, Hughes’ parents, were British subjects. Hughes, born in the U.S., had been governor of New York and a Supreme Court Justice, but he was not a natural born citizen. The issues were revealed by Democrat attorney Breckenridge Long in Americas most popular legal journal. Long cited Minor v. Happersett and explained Hughes’ ineligibility. Had Hughes beaten Wilson Democrats would have challenged in court, as they are likely to do if Cruz wins in the election. This time the Democrat is a natural born citizen.
Read the decisions. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Domiciled resident Chinese parents who observed U.S. jurisdiction was naturalized as a citizen. Marie Elg, born to naturalized citizens in New York, was returned to Sweden as a toddler when her father found work, and where her parents repudiated their U.S. citizenship, was recognized as a natural born citizen, a citizen by God that could not be altered by men (Congress), and returned to the U.S. in her early twenties. A naturalized citizen would have had to apply for naturalization.
Cruz is not ignorant. His Harvard Con. Law. professor told us that he argued as a conservative. Now he repudiates Minor, Wong Kim, Perkins, and our Constitution to suit his ambitions. We are learning how corrupt our federally appointed judges are. We are learning how little respect all three branches have for the Constitution. What to do about it when voting in this country doesn’t begin to have the integrity of even Mexico’s voting system, where voters need picture IDs with RFIDs with biometric information and ballots are paper, visible in clear containers at precincts.