Cruz likely eligible to be President

Big Givernment ^ | March 11 | Ken Klukowski

[Jeff Winston]

Explain in detail.

I just did.

[edge919]

Ummm, several those are consistent with the Supreme Court: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. These are the natural-born citizens.

[Jeff Winston]

Ummm, several those are consistent with the Supreme Court: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. These are the natural-born citizens.

The Supreme Court has FAINTLY hinted on two occasions that I can think of offhand.

Once was The Venus. Except that wasn't about citizenship, it was about domicile. Marshall did not attempt to claim at all that natural born citizenship required citizen parents. That simply wasn't the purpose he cited Vattel for.

The other was Minor v. Happersett. The comment was 2 sentences of CLEAR dicta (because it was unsupported by any argument or authority whatsoever and the status of persons born of alien parents was absolutely irrelevant to the case). And the Court specifically said they weren't going to decide that issue.

Again, the Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark issued a definitive ruling that encompassed natural born citizenship, as an exhaustive examination of natural born subjecthood/ citizenship was the entire core rationale of the case.

DOZENS of pages.

Birthers strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Two citizens of clear dicta supposedly rule; dozens of pages of on-target, in-depth legal analysis count for nothing.

It's what birthers do all the time. They do it because they WANT particular results, and no proper approach to evidence or history will give them those results.

This isn't controversial in any court of law or in any legal circles. It is entirely settled law that citizen parents are NOT required for natural born citizenship, at least for those born on US soil.

You're wasting your life to claim otherwise. Of course, it's your life. But you're also harming conservatism.

[Jeff Winston]

Two citizens of clear dicta supposedly rule; dozens of pages of on-target, in-depth legal analysis count for nothing.

Sorry. Meant two sentences of dicta, obviously. Lol.

[edge919]

The Supreme Court has FAINTLY hinted on two occasions that I can think of offhand.

Right, as long as YOU qualify as "faintly," then that should make it so??

Once was The Venus. Except that wasn't about citizenship, it was about domicile. Marshall did not attempt to claim at all that natural born citizenship required citizen parents. That simply wasn't the purpose he cited Vattel for.

What was the purpose?? Was it to restrict ALL birth citizenship as being due to citizen parents?? Why cite a passage about birth to citizen parents if the issue is about domicile??

The other was Minor v. Happersett. The comment was 2 sentences of CLEAR dicta (because it was unsupported by any argument or authority whatsoever and the status of persons born of alien parents was absolutely irrelevant to the case). And the Court specifically said they weren't going to decide that issue.

It wasn't "dicta" at all. Wong Kim Ark gave the holding as making Minor's citizenship due to being born to citizen parents instead of being born subject to the 14th amendment. And Luria v. United States cited Minor as a precedent on presidential eligibility and NOT about voting rights. In some decisions, there are multiple precedents that are established. NBC was used by Minor to reject part of the argument presented before them.

Again, the Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark issued a definitive ruling that encompassed natural born citizenship, as an exhaustive examination of natural born subjecthood/ citizenship was the entire core rationale of the case.

No, they gave an exhaustive ruling on 14th amendment citizenship by birth after they noted the holding in Minor said that the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. Reading is fundamental, jeff.

But you're also harming conservatism.

Nothing about upholding the Constutition and respecting Supreme Court precedent harms conservatism. This is just one of those ad hominem insults you were just hypocritically whining about.

[MamaTexan]

Madison was speaking of the circumstances surrounding citizenship at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

To continue DOWN from your quote:

I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community;

There is nothing here when your quote is read IN CONTEXT to indicate Madison meant this was to operate in perpetuity.

You are, once again, trying to turn particulars into generalities.

-----

Show me which link you refer to, and I'll have a look.

No, I will not. If you are SO unfamiliar with your evidence that you can't recall which one supports which position out of the paltry four that are contained within your post, you'll get no assistance from me.

If YOU want to know what YOU said.....

click them yourself.

-----

Frauds are those who twist and misrepresent history, not those who present an accurate view of it.

ROFLMAO!

Someone using their own, personal 'rationalization' of a case instead of the exact words written in the determination is no viable judge of either honesty OR accuracy.

----

If you're a plant, I'll give you this;

You come with your own fertilizer.

[MamaTexan]

Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:23:48 AM by Jeff Winston

Thanks for the info, CC!

[Windflier]

Heh. I love the ad hominem.

I know you do. It's just the diversion you need to escape without making your case.

But that's fine. Now that I've figured out that you're paid by the word, it no longer matters.

[Jeff Winston]

But that's fine. Now that I've figured out that you're paid by the word, it no longer matters.

Like I say, I love the stupid ad hominem. It reveals you for what you are.

[Jeff Winston]

No, I will not. If you are SO unfamiliar with your evidence that you can't recall which one supports which position out of the paltry four that are contained within your post, you'll get no assistance from me.

Okay, I'll play your stupid little game.

The post you responded to was here.

About which, you said: And don't get me started how you 'evidence' was a publication from 2009 titled "Deliver Us From Evil"....and you couldn't even access enough to see the footnotes to know where the quotes actually came from.

You're simply lying, which is what liars do. I provided no link to any such page.

That being the case, I don't know why anyone would pay the slightest attention to anything MamaTexan says.

[Windflier]

Like I say, I love the stupid ad hominem. It reveals you for what you are.

You're being dangerously transparent, Jeff. If you were what you purport to be, a stupid ad hominem wouldn't merit a reply from you. Especially considering the fact that you've been peppering me with such throughout our exchange here.

I'd be careful if I were you. You're going to draw suspicion to the whole op if you keep it up.

[MamaTexan]

You're simply lying, which is what liars do. I provided no link to any such page.

Try looking here;
cause "negroes" to "rise in value,"

-----

You're simply lying, which is what liars do. I provided no link to any such page.

So this webpage:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xEC9K7quBoEC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=alexander+gillon+slavery&source=bl&ots=rZZI0hOQml&sig=QcO_ozMjeeJq8X245q_S7iAQND4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dWVCUYiHKMPxqQGTs4HgAw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=alexander%20gillon%20slavery&f=false

THAT YOU POSTED.....

Means I'm the liar?

------

Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Your last multitude of posts showed you were a purveyor of excremental projectiles flailing about in a vain hope for adherence to a vertical surface.

I guess it's my own fault for thinking your last one would be any different.

[Jeff Winston]

Yes, it goes to that web page. And that web page displays a Google books page which clearly says, "Closing the trade, Charleston merchant Alexander Gillon predicted, would trigger 'negroes' to 'rise in value,' and allow 'the debtor who sold slaves' a 'better chance of satisfying his creditors."

And that's what I get, no matter what browser I use or whether I'm signed in to Google or not.

There's nothing wrong with the reference. It's a perfectly legitimate reference.

Why you would make a big deal about not liking this particular reference is an absolute mystery anyway, since it's the ONLY reference out of the three that even seems to be a point in favor of the birther theory that David Ramsay was being an unselfish humanitarian, instead of a self-interested sore loser, by writing his little treatise on citizenship that quite conveniently argued that Smith was not a citizen and therefore ineligible to take the seat he had won in the House.

This is what birthers do.

First, IGNORE all of the historical evidence - which in this case indicates that yes, David Ramsay WAS a sore loser, and had no great humanitarian anti-slavery motive for trying to have Smith declared ineligible, and Alexander Gillon installed instead.

Then, find some stupid little tiny thing that means absolutely nothing, that you can focus on to try and declare the person who actually PRESENTED the EVIDENCE a "plant." Or a "paid shill."

Heck, it doesn't even matter if you want to criticize some point that the person providing the EVIDENCE included because it was IN FAVOR OF YOUR ARGUMENT.

ANYTHING will do. Anything to try and distract people from the FACT that your claims have not the slightest basis in history or in law.

[Jeff Winston]

You and Windflier are simply despicable people.

You will do anything to oppose the evidence and the truth. You would do anything to try and shut up the person who actually tells the TRUTH about what the Founding Fathers and our early legal experts meant.

There’s no name you won’t call.

Again, it’s not me you’re opposing. It’s our history, our laws, our Constitution, and the great men who founded this country and gave us the great nation we have.

[MamaTexan]

Yes, it goes to that web page. And that web page displays a Google books page which clearly says, "Closing the trade, Charleston merchant Alexander Gillon predicted, would trigger 'negroes' to 'rise in value,' and allow 'the debtor who sold slaves' a 'better chance of satisfying his creditors."

I didn't SAY WHAT IT DID OR DID NOT SAY!

I said;

And don't get me started how you 'evidence' was a publication from 2009 titled "Deliver Us From Evil"....and you couldn't even access enough to see the footnotes to know where the quotes actually came from.

Oh, yeah, I forgot....

You've shown reading comprehension is definitely NOT your strong suit.

-----

PRESENTED the EVIDENCE

I've presented evidence using your sources that Madison DID NOT SAY what you said he did.

I've presented evidence using your sources concerning Wong Kim Ark to show IT DID NOT SAY what you said it did.

Yet you have continually SKIPPED over all these assertions to nit pick over something I NEVER said, failed to do anything but harangue over points TOTALLY UNRELATED to the subject at hand, and personally attacked people based on nothing more than your own baseless misconceptions.

-----

I have been here TWELVE YEARS and have always held to the rule I wouldn't tag the admin mods just because the discussion got foul-languaged and heated.

But by God, sir.....you call me a liar again and I will most assuredly willing to make an exception.

I've taken your ad hominem attacks up until now, but I will take no more.

[MamaTexan]

Pretty speech.

Looks like somehting RIGHT out of O'Bammy's mouth.

[Jeff Winston]

I've made no ad hominem attacks on you.

If I've called you anything, it's because you darn well deserved it.

Your so-called evidence is completely bogus. Heck, I can't even get you to focus on the evidence.

I can't even get you to say that if the evidence is clearly better against your theory, you'll admit it.

Because you won't, of course.

I've presented evidence using your sources that Madison DID NOT SAY what you said he did.

Of course Madison said what I said he did. That's verifiable. Anybody can look it up.

I've presented evidence using your sources concerning Wong Kim Ark to show IT DID NOT SAY what you said it did.

Of course Wong Kim Ark says what I said it does. You've presented absolutely nothing to discredit ANYTHING I've said about the case.

The words of the Court are not only clear, they repeat the same points multiple times in multiple ways.

Beyond that, the fact that US v Wong Kim Ark decided Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen is not disputed by any competent legal authority. That conclusion has even been affirmed by not one, but SEVERAL recent courts.

Don't you think judges can read cases and understand what they mean? Or do you think that the ability to understand a Supreme Court decision is only limited to people whose only qualification is that they are a "mama" in Texas?

When it comes to Supreme Court Justices, Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, specifically said the issue was "clear."

Yet you have continually SKIPPED over all these assertions to nit pick over something I NEVER said, failed to do anything but harangue over points TOTALLY UNRELATED to the subject at hand, and personally attacked people based on nothing more than your own baseless misconceptions.

Wow. That's projection, if I ever saw it.

Let's review. I'm the person who's presented the evidence here.

I'm the person who WOULD have given you the evidence that "law of nations" in our Constitution never came from Vattel (as you claimed), except for your steadfast and adamant refusal to ever accept any evidence that doesn't lead to a conclusion you personally like.

I'll still produce that evidence, if you can tell me you'll go with the evidence, and not with your personal preference of which fantasy to believe in.

But by God, sir.....you call me a liar again and I will most assuredly willing to make an exception.

I will in this instance withdraw the "liar" accusation. You're not a liar, just a dissembler. You make a big deal about a reference that was perfectly legitimate, that very mildly supported YOUR side of the argument, and pretend that there's something really wrong with it when in fact there is NOTHING wrong with the reference. It's a perfectly valid reference.

And that particular point out totally would only make MY case, that Alexander Gillon showed no real signs of being anti-slavery, and plenty of signs of being PRO-slavery (heck, the man directed that the proceeds from his estate should be used to BUY UP MORE "NEGROES" after he was gone).

That being the case, YES, David Ramsay was a SORE LOSER, and his little citizenship treatise was NOT written for the good of mankind.

Not that Ramsay knew anything about citizenship law in the first place. He was not even a lawyer.

So why do you and Windflier try to DISSEMBLE and OBFUSCATE regarding Ramsay?

Ramsay, as pathetic as he is - HE WAS VOTED DOWN, 36 TO 1, IN A VOTE LED BY FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION JAMES MADISON - is literally ALL YOU HAVE.

Every other voice from the time of the Founders and early America says your little theory is (to put it very mildly) nonsense.

Do I need to list again the 30 or so authorities from early America that say you're following an idiotic cult? That you're twisting and misrepresenting what the Constitution actually meant?

I can if you like.

[Jeff Winston]

Looks like somehting RIGHT out of O'Bammy's mouth.

You want to know who's really speaking for Obama and the liberals?

It's people like you who claim that it takes two citizen parents PLUS birth on US soil to make a natural born citizen.

People like you, who adamantly proclaim that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President.

You need to go to a liberal-supporting site, because given your opposition to good Americans and folks like Ted Cruz, that's where you belong.

[MamaTexan]

Do you get paid by the word?

[Jeff Winston]

I’ll tell you something else.

You people are NOT keeping anybody from voting for Ted Cruz in 2016 (assuming he runs) if I have the slightest thing to say about it.

And if push comes to shove, I’d be willing to bet the owner of this site will eventually run out of patience for those who would dump Senator Cruz in the trash, as well.

If Jim has the slightest doubt about the two-citizen-parent claims being nonsense, I’d be willing to sit down and explain to him the fallacies in any piece of “evidence” he has any questions about.