That's because he's an idiot, and you are a deluded crank.
Jeff and Kansas58 depicted below.
Posted on 07/28/2013 6:13:04 PM PDT by drewh
You are just full of wrong information. And for some reason you feel the need to spread it.
Tyrants always want to restrict dissent.
You are a fool.
Ah, but then an IDIOT comes along and says "EVERY LEGAL AUTHORITY AGREES WITH ME, THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG."
So which is it, are you in FAVOR of the Judicial Supremacy, or are you against it? Let us know when you make up your mind.
I am not sure that I understand your question completely.
However, the point I am making is that there can be MANY paths to Natural Born Citizenship, and that naming the obvious path does not rule out the other paths to Natural Born Citizenship.
It is without question that those born on U.S. Soil to two U.S. Citizen parents are Natural Born Citizens.
However, it is also possible to be born on foreign soil and to be a Natural Born Citizen, if that birthright can be passed on to you due to a qualified citizen parent.
That's because he's an idiot, and you are a deluded crank.
Jeff and Kansas58 depicted below.
Sometimes the parrot is right. Even when wrong, you should probably listen.
I have to disagree with you. I was taught exactly that every step of the way of my education including both my Government and Constitution classes in college. I was taught there were THREE classes of citizenship, one of which is NATURAL Born.
My son was born abroad on a Military base in the 70s. The paperwork states he is a NATIVE born citizen. I was told he could never run for POTUS when I inquired about the consequences to his overseas birth.
Pre-0, I would not have considered Cruz to be eligible to run for POTUS. Since 0 and McCain, a precedent has been set. It would require a ruling of the Court to rescind said precedent. Cruz, as of this moment in time, is qualified, imofwiw. That and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee in the 0 economy.
Yes it can, unfortunately. It may have been regional, but I was explicitly and repeatedly taught the three types of citizenship.
Yes Jeff, the very one who ABSOLUTELY DISAGREES WITH YOU.
But once again, you LYINGLY cover up the FACT that John Marshall DISAGREES WITH YOU. (You also lie so as to make it appear that Baynard agrees with you.) But let's focus on how you are LYING about John Marshall.
John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: The Venus - 12 U.S. 253 (1814)
"The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.""The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."
The position is reinforced in this book as well.
So once again, Jeff is Lying. It's not that he hasn't seen this material, it's that he's seen it and refuses to accept it.
Marshall is NOT ON YOUR SIDE JEFF.
Nor do you. You simply keep repeating the same brain dead stupid crap over and over again. Your main argument is "ALL LEGAL AUTHORITIES AGREE WITH ME."
Just mindless.
What did I say? Simply mindless.
And I mean truly mindless.
It appears to be the only thing he knows how to do. His NUMBER ONE ARGUMENT is "All the legal authorities are on MY SIDE!"
Later in the thread he complains about "Judicial Supremacy", ("Point well taken. Lets NOT give the Courts any MORE power! Conservatism, at its core, REJECTS Judicial Supremacy!") and is mindlessly oblivious to the fact that this is his central argument.
What a character.
Did they also tell you that Abortion was a right guaranteed by the 14th amendment? Do you agree with them?
If you’re not comfortable mentioning the name, you could describe the type of school it is.
School won't help you Jeff. What you need is a sanitarium. Might I recommend this one?
Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital
I'm also glad that you believe that "Cruz, as of this moment in time, is qualified." Each of us has our own unique journey to the truth.
Once again, maniacal repetition. And he STILL doesn't understand that this doesn't PROVE anything. It's just rant.
Not being able to think for yourself must really suck.
You really are ridiculous. You are like Bagdad Bob in this regard.
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.