Posted on 08/26/2013 1:51:55 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
You don’t get on much, do you mate?
My comment did precisely follow from yours, if you are aware of the entire issue.
He’s a graduate of Princeton and Harvard school of law. Thus, his statement that he thought it was settled is counterfactual. Unbelieveable. Stunning in it’s apparent falsity.
Either that, or he did not get his money’s worth in education... You make the call.
Either way, your lack of understanding does not indict the coherence of my thought.
Great, so 55 years from now we can read about the Mexico-born son of some Al Qaeda fighter who “fought alongside Obama’s forces to overthrow Syria’s once-US-backed dictator Assad” who will be President.
The fact that Naturalization law adopted in 1795 removed the phrase “natural born citizen” tells us that this phrase did not have the same meaning as the phrase “born a citizen”. Otherwise, why change the law after only five years?
Few years earlier, Hamilton proposed that the eligibility requirement for US Presidency includes the phrase “born a citizen”. Instead, John Jay’s proposal was adopted. In his letter to George Washington Jay proposed that eligibilty be given to “natural born Citizens”.
Eligibility requirement is a national security measure, a strong check preventing a person with dual allegiance from taking command of US military.
Neither Obama nor Cruz are eligible for US presidency.
So, you're saying you're a short-winded birther.
(a)The Constitution of the United States of America is not a "trick".
(b) Not only am also I a "one-trick pony," but I would like to teach one trick to the SCOTUS. You know, the one where they get off their black-robèd rumps and trot over to hear an appeal on the issue ... on its merits.... and let us know exactly what a "natural born Citizen" is.
The trick the SCOTUS ponies have been pulling is .... by their own admission ... is to use mounds of ponyshiite to hide the issue so they can overlook it. It still smells bad, however.
Mr. Cruz had or has the option of Canadian, Cuban, or American citizenship. Mr. Obama has or had the option of British, Kenyan, Indonesian, or American citizenship.
My one trick? I need the SCOTUS to tell me how exactly this qualifies either of'em as a "natural born Citizen" as mandated by COTUS AII.
BTW, this has nothing to do with the Obama pony. A little late in the day to teach that Mombasa MF any new tricks, ain't it?
Really? How so? I said he was either ignorant or a liar.
You also said that "his mother once told him that he had Canadian citizenship", and you supplied a link to document that point.
As I said, your link doesn't support that claim.
The law was about Naturalization. It was called a Naturalization Act. They could have removed the comment about Natural Born Citizen because it wasn't relevant to a Naturalization Act.
once more...
Do you really want someone that was born in Canada and went to Harvard Law School, but is too STUPID to know that he is a Canadian Citizen to run our country?
Do you, just a simple yes or no?
Really?
From your link:
"Having" citizenship and "persuing" citizenship are of course two different things.
Look it up!!
LOLOL.
No it is much worse than that...... He Knows.... However, he is counting on the fact that most of us are too stupid to realize that by virtue of his dual citizenship with the USA, and Canada, he could never be a natural Born Citizen. Unfortunately, what is even more tragic, he is probably correct.
Hope you don’t mind if I ply through, but if Cruz decides to run and he’s the strongest conservative running, I’m going to support him to the hilt!! And I believe most tea party conservatives will too.
FR will be Cruz Country!!
GO, CRUZ, GO!!
The tea party rebellion is ON!!
“...Supreme Court Ruling...”
WOW! You sure talk like you think you know your business. Too bad you don’t.
“The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship. Below, are multiple quotations from various published literature which cogently establish that the Supreme Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and the other on voting rights. That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed. My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.”
“FREDERICK VAN DYNE, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR US DEPARTMENT OF STATE was an esteemed legal scholar and Government attorney who specialized in citizenship law. He provided unquestionable clarity on the issue of why Minor v. Happersett is precedent on citizenship as well as voting rights.”
“Frederick Van Dyne who, while holding the office of Assistant Solicitor for the US Department of State, published analysis that the citizenship decision in Minor v. Happersett was precedent.”
“Van Dyne argued that persons born of foreign parents on US soil were “native-born citizens” of the US prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment. But Van Dyne, while discussing the holding in the New York case of Lynch v. Clark (not binding on the Federal Courts), failed to endorse that case’s opinion that all native-born citizens of foreign parentage were natural-born citizens. In his famous treatise, “Citizenship of the United States” (Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co., 1904), Van Dyne only went so far as to state that such persons were “native-born citizens”. (See Van Dyne’s treatise at pgs. 6-7.)”
“Where the US Supreme Court in Minor differs from Obama eligibility propaganda is that the former regards being “native-born” as just one element necessary to meeting the natural-born citizen standard of POTUS eligibility, whereas the latter incorrectly argue that it is the only element. As you will see below, Van Dyne directly recognized that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Minor was precedent on citizenship, and that the holding therein defined natural-born citizens as those born in the US of citizen parents.”
“In the following passage, Van Dyne argues that previous American cases recognized that persons born on US soil were US citizens regardless of the citizenship of the parents. However, Van Dyne also points out that a statement by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases appears to contradict this theory. But Van Dyne’s analysis stresses that the contradictory statement in the Slaughter-House Cases is dictum.”
“He then refers to the “decision” in Minor v. Happersett on citizenship in order to counter the “dictum” from the Slaughter-House Cases. Van Dyne clearly recognized the Minor Court’s decision on citizenship as precedent which outweighs the dictum of the Slaughter-House Cases. In doing so, Van Dyne quotes (see pgs. 12-13) the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen as one born in the US to citizen parents:”
“Very rarely, whilst doing research, does one come upon historical evidence that so perfectly establishes the point in question. Examine the last paragraph again:”
“The decision in this case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”
“The “decision” in Minor is twofold:”
“1) woman are equal citizens to men;”
“2) voting is not a right of citizenship.”
“The first point is still good law. This may seem obvious now, but in 1875 it wasn’t. Virginia Minor did not accept that citizenship without voting rights was equal citizenship. She argued that women were being treated as “halfway citizens” and she directly petitioned the Court for a determination which stated that women were equal citizens to men.”
“The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, if born in the US to citizen parents, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men. The Court further stated that this “class” of persons were “natives, or natural-born citizens”.”
“The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female. This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today. Therefore, the Court’s decision in Minor operates against Obama being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen.”
Let me give you a heads up on this business: born in the USA of US citizen parents has existed as an eligibility requirement since the beginning of the Republic. With President Chester A. Arthur, who hid the fact that he was born in the U.S.A. to a father who wasn’t a U.S. citizen even to the extent of burning all his private papers, it has been the norm.
The Democrats wanted desperately to control all three branches of government in 2008. They believed they had a winner with BHO2 because he was, they believed, a black man who American blacks would unequivocally vote for as a Democrat candidate. When the Party discovered that BHO2 had been born in Kenya, that is when their problems started accumulating.
They broke the law to acquire power.
Conservatives should not do the same. So, how long have you been flogging for the Progressives?
I agree with you in that I also like Ted Cruz .... a lot.... However, I love the constitution even more.
I hope that if Ted Cruz decides to run, the supreme court will first accept one of the eligibility cases and rule on the matter.
I will even accept, as there was with McCain, a nonbinding Senate resolution declaring Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen.
But for me.... not addressing the issue is government malpractice.
If the Justices or Senate conclude that a person born on foreign soil to one USA citizen mother or father and one non USA citizen mother or father is a natural born USA Citizen, I will happily and enthusiastically support the Cruz bandwagon.
I am also hoping that Ted Cruz himself will specifically address the NBC matter..... He keeps saying that he was born a USA citizen (which is true) but the phrase Natural Born Citizen has yet to leave his lips.
| The Constitutional Requirements:
|
|||
| Office | Citizenship | Age | Residency (or years citizen) |
| Commander in Chief | natural born Citizen | 35 | 14 years resident |
| Senator | Citizen | 30 | 9 years a Citizen |
| Represantative | Citizen | 25 | 7 years a Citizen |
Sen. Ted Cruz - A native of Canada.
Born in a foreign country. [1]
Born with foreign citizenship. [2]
Born owing allegiance to that foreign country. [3][4]
Born a U.S. citizen due exclusively to his mother meeting the specific requirements in the congressional law in existence at the time of his birth. [5]
Foreign born Sen. Ted Cruz is a U.S. "citizen" by congressional statute.
Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to make laws determining who may be a "natural born Citizen."
Instead of seeking the office, Sen. Ted Cruz may be trying to force the issue into the "national" debate.
Gouverneur Morris, a founding father and a member of the committee responsible for writing much of the final constitution wrote this in a letter in 1813 (http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_gom8450) “It is unquestionably a point of universal Law, established from the earliest ages, that every nation has an indefeasable right over its own natural born Citizens.”
How can two nations have an indefeasable right over the same citizen?
They can’t. Natural born citizen by Morris’ useage would only apply to someone who was born in country to citizen parents. Anything other leaves open claims by other nations.
Cruz and Obama both have multiple nations that can make claims to their “right” over them. Born in Canada with a Cuban father and an American mother puts 3 nations in conflict. Obama with an American mom and a Kenyan/British dad also has obvious conflicts.
At this point I am inclined to defer to a founding father’s definition, especially one who was responsible for the wording of the constitution.
To late Johnny, we don't all post on these threads just because you non birthers do.
I am about 99% in agreement with you on about all your positions, but this one comes in at 0%.
Would I rather see Cruz than Obama, d@mn straight, but that is not the correct question.
In the end I suppose it doesn't really matter since we already have a king to rule over us.
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.