Posted on 09/03/2013 10:18:04 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Ezekiel Chapter 18: 19-20: Yet say ye, (WhiskeyX) Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Now that is natural law!!!!! Furthermore, I seem to recall most of America was on the wrong side of the Castro situation back then. Castro screwed over our support of him which should tell us to stay out of other country's business.
Much of that is certainly true as far as it goes, but it once more omits the critical evidence that renders the half truths as deceptions. In the event you would someday come to realize and acknowledge that children born abroad cannot by definition be natural born citizens, it would then follow that any member of Congress who is such a person and is a candidate for election as POTUS would be in violation of their sacred oath upon the Bible to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. In such a case, that person would indeed be committing wrongs, whether or not their father did so.
Given how children born abroad were denied natural born citizenship by the U.S. Government on the basis of being alien born children in the 19th Century, there is evidently no possible basis for a child born in the 20th Century to have such a status as a natural born citizen of the United States either. Anything and everything else involves unnatural acts, which by definition are not natural.
A memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009 written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) states: “Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural-born subject” in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause’s apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth”.”
That’s enough proof for me. There are no monsters hiding in the closet. This memorandum has been raised many times on various NBC threads. If you need me to cite the reference, let me know.
Your reliance on that piece of disinformation and false propaganda effectively makes you an official supporter of Obama. It was written by an unabashed political agent of Obama’s and has been discredited for its blatantly fraudulent misrepresentations and falsifications of the SCOTUS and other decisions. See the nalaysis provided by Leo Donofrio for examples of where the CRS memo deliberately falsifies the historical records.
You gotta be kidding me! Donofrio and that other hack Mario something or other are the biggest liars and losers in the history of American jurisprudence. Their arguments regarding this matter have been totally discredited by every single judge they faced. Sanctions were issued in Mario’s case! For your info the CRS along with the CBO are independent agencies. Unless you can prove to me that Zero fired everyone in that office and replaced with his stooges three months after taking office in 2009 (the date the CRS missive was issued) show me the proof. Otherwise get with the program.
This is precisely what is wrong with you people. You (collectively speaking of course) disagree with every agency, congress, conservative leader and legal precedent that disagree with your ridiculous position. You are to be ignored or better yet required to get back on your meds because you people live in a different world. You call anyone who opposes your distorted view an OBOT which is very crude and childish.
To understand the mindset of our founders regarding NBC read the exact words written in the Naturalization Act of 1790 here: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
This Act clearly states that children born overseas of U.S. citizens are NBC. Of course to your credit children born on U.S. soil of naturalized citizens were referred to as citizens, not NBC but that was changed later by Amendment to the Constitution.
Are you saying the 1790 congress, the very FIRST congress, are liars and miss-informers also?
Yes we know he said that, but it was not part of the ruling it was said In Dicta.
Which means that it must be absolutely wrong, because Judges are ignorant buffoons when they are writing dicta, especially regarding something which is really simple, such as citizenship.
Thjey will find a way. they will focus on place of birth, or eye color, or something.
I always thought one needed to be born of two citizen parents, with no claims of allegiance to another nation, to be a natural-born citizen. But I guess the world disagrees with me.
I cannot speak for the world, but I agree with you fully.
Here we have a man as President who has a man he claims as his father and that man was a Kenyan, an African.Perhaps Obama was born in Africa, we don’t know for sure.
He has a phony Birth Certificate a phony selective service card, and phony Social Security card, and we have no records of his college education other then his word.
Now we have Ted Cruz, His father a Cuban born man who is a naturalized citizen. His Mother born in Wilmington Delaware. Cruz born in Canada. But he has a Birth Certificate and a valid Social security card, and I assume a valid Selective Service card. His college records wide open for anyone to see.
My point being that although we agree neither Obama nor Cruz are eligible to be President-—Obama IS President-—and what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.
It’s a little late to worry about the NBC, that horse has left the gate.
Understood - it will be interesting to see hoe the MSM tries to make it an issue after giving Obama a pass. But they will, I have no doubt.
The prove part is in the italicized section on which I was commenting.
The “asked to renounce” is based on the law that forbids dual citizenship, so the push would be toward not having dual citizenship, and, as you have said, with few exceptions.
I doubt that citizenship in a western hemisphere communist nation would be one of the exceptions.
Remember this thread?
:-)
Here's what you said:
The burden of proof of ineligibility lies on those asserting it. The evidence must be clear and convincing and if the case were even given a hearing in court, then all reasonable doubt would be given to Ted Cruz. Hence, there is not a snowball's chance in Hell that any court will determine that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, or as Mr. Jacobson noted "natural born Citizen" with the capitals only on the term Citizen.
My yesterday assertion (which happens to be the Breitbart editors point of view) that the dems have telegraphed their intent to use this issue, litigate it, and push it to the courts to the max doesn't contradict anything from the common sense the author of the article brought to light.
On the contrary, as we learned with gay rights and Obamacare, common sense doesn't apply to liberals and their wins in the courts.
I don’t remember this one specifically, but I participated in a lot of threads arguing on behalf of Cruz. For the most part, I fought hard for Cruz’s acceptability, and I did not distinguish, iirc, between NBC and citizen at birth.
I STILL argue for the legitimacy of Cruz’s run based on our current laws. They seem to equate ‘citizen at birth’ with ‘natural born citizen’ and most legal people say that a challenge to his status would fail...if it would even be heard.
However, that is different that saying that NBC cannot be challenged in court, particularly at the state level, and that a name could be left off of a state ballot by order of a state court. Since the election is state by state, that wouldn’t matter for Cruz in solid red states like Calif and NY. Just one purple state, especially Ohio or Florida, doing so would spell defeat. The Ohio Supreme Court is fairly republican. I don’t know about Florida. If Virginia is a ‘must-win’ purple state, then that could be crucial. The same with North Carolina.
But that is different
The dems may try to get the issue to court, but no court is going to rule on it. They are going yo do with it what they did to those who tried it with Obama. Nothing.
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.