Posted on 06/11/2014 11:18:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
TxSynthMan’s opinion is certainly representative of the point of view of some of the Founders but definitely not all of them. From the notes of the Continental Convention we know that the Framers of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers in general were in unanimity on very few issues. There were serious debates, intense disagreements and great compromises made on many important issues.
For example, countering the point of view of some founders that TxSynthMan represents were opinions like these:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”— James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution,” May 22, 1789
and,
“The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.—Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by Congress and signed into law by President George Washington on March 26, 1790
Are you going to let us in on your little secret, or keep everyone in the dark, what is your problem?
It's a matter of law in the same way that roe v wade is a matter of law. Utter crap fed mostly by a deliberate misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.
We are seeing the results of this deliberate misinterpretation of the 14th amendment with people from all over Central and South America streaming across our borders.
http://minx.cc:1080/?post=349888
Why would you think I was comparing him to Obama? Obama never managed anything.
Generally speaking Senators have made crappy Presidents. They tend to talk and not listen. It’s way too early for me to get too worked up over anyone yet.
I am still laughing that you think I like Obama?
And anyway, being better than Obama is setting the standard a little low isn’t it?
There is no comparison between this and Roe v Wade.
This is a direct statement in the Constitution and a direct power given to Congress.
Roe v Wade is the famous emanation of a penumbra...the entire idea being made up out of thin air.
huh? secret - no secrets here....nice deflection though. I was honestly done with the thread - but if you want to continue to engage - have at it, pops
There is an EXACT comparison between this and Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade is based on a deliberate misapplication of the 14th amendment. (Didn't you know that?)
Anchor baby citizenship is likewise based on a deliberate misapplication of the 14th amendment. Different sections of it to be sure, but still from the same amendment.
This is a direct statement in the Constitution and a direct power given to Congress.
There is a direct statement in the Constitution saying that Congress has the power to Naturalize, but you aren't going for naturalization, you are going for them having the ability to change the laws of nature by congressional whim.
Your theory allows for congress to pass a law declaring anyone born in China to Chinese parents is a "natural born citizen." Can congress pass such a law? Sure they can! And you would be out there demanding that we all be reasonable because congress passed a law! On the other hand, maybe that would finally wake you up to the fact that Congress can't change the meaning of a constitutional requirement.
Roe v Wade is the famous emanation of a penumbra...the entire idea being made up out of thin air.
Of the fourth amendment, and forcibly applied to the states through the power of the fourteenth amendment. This is the sort of crap you end up with when you don't hold people to correct interpretations of Constitutional law.
Your theory allows for congress to pass a law declaring anyone born in China to Chinese parents is a "natural born Citizen." Can congress pass such a law? Sure they can! And you would be out there demanding that we all be reasonable because congress passed a law! On the other hand, maybe that would finally wake you up to the fact that Congress can't change the meaning of a constitutional requirement. [...] This is the sort of crap you end up with when you don't hold people to correct interpretations of Constitutional law.Your post is spot on, DL, but some here seem to base their arguments on emotion rather than logic, so I fear your excellent points will be lost on them.
I believe the founders did not define natural born Citizen for two reasons, the meaning was both obvious and unambiguous to a man of the times, and it spoke to a simple immutable fact of nature that was beyond the laws of man to define or to change. (Similar to other basic facts of nature like 2+2=4 and a natural born horse can only be the offspring of a horse and horse -- a horse and lion can never produce a horse, no matter how many laws to the contrary foolish men may pass.)
The intent of the natural born Citizen eligibility requirement is to ensure that our presidents be born and raised free of any possible split allegiances. I believe Ted Cruz is a through-and-through conservative who meets the spirit of the requirement even though he may not meet its letter. And should he become our standard bearer, I will be voting for him, but I fear the dems will not hesitate to use every trick in the book to ensure the victory of their own candidate, including waiting to challenge Cruz's eligibility until after it is too late to field another candidate (they will use the "fact" that Ted Cruz was foreign born while aka obama was not).
Perhaps we would do better to go with a thoroughly vetted and proven executive candidate with solid gubernatorial experience under fire like Scott Walker rather than a freshman senator, but if Ted Cruz does choose to run, then I hope he has the good sense to demand a SCOTUS ruling on his eligibility early on both for his own sake and the sake of his fellow countrymen.
Glad to hear you say that. Because the very first Congress formed from this Constitution, with George Washington the president of the convention, who also became president of the nation -- that very first Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
The "men of the times" as you say, this Congress and this President Washinton, many of whom helped WRITE the Constitution, had no problem recognizing blood-based citizenship at birth is also 'natural born' citizenship.
I will be happy with either, but I would give Cruz the preference edge.
You keep using that argument and it has always baffled me why you do it because it proves the opposite of the point you are trying to make. The words "Considered as" mean the same as "Like" or "similar". Which means NOT the same thing.
You have a statement which specifically says they are NOT the same thing, and yet you try to spin it into meaning that they are.
And that doesn't even begin to address your cognitive dissonance with this line: "Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: " Which I interpret to mean that Foreign Fathers are absolutely out. Their children get NO CITIZENSHIP AT ALL.
The "men of the times" as you say, this Congress and this President Washinton, many of whom helped WRITE the Constitution, had no problem recognizing blood-based citizenship at birth is also 'natural born' citizenship.
"Considered As" not "also." It is like it, but not the exact same thing. By saying "considered as" rather than saying "Shall be natural born citizens" it seems as if Congress of the times is tacitly acknowledging that they don't have the power to make something natural when nature didn't.
It's just like adoption. Someone can be given the family name, but they aren't actually blood kin. They can be "considered as" family, but they aren't actually part of the same family tree.
He is the same as makes no difference in this modern very ignorant society. So are Anchor babies and the Children of Birth tourists. As time goes on, I expect the subset of "natural born citizens" to look very much like the world population.
There is no longer a distinction as makes any difference.
14th Amendment: Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Well said! This is exactly what the New World Order folks want us, the great unwashed, to think. We become no different from the rest of the world....no borders, one currency, a tiny ruling elite, where all are simply world citizens and everyone makes about $8k/year.
(NB: The Olympics would be reduced to a personal achievement affair, with no flags. Very exciting, huh? Hey, let's get the ball rolling and form an "international" NWO basketball team to compete?).
The debates on the 14th amendment make it clear that it was never intended to apply to the children of Transient aliens. The Wong Kim Ark ruling does not even go so far. It holds that residency in the country is an essential aspect of making the children into citizens. Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanent residents, but were forbidden by Treaty from obtaining American Citizenship.
That case has been deliberately misinterpreted to imply that mere birth within our borders conveys citizenship. It simply did not go that far. Much misery would be prevented if we could simply follow legislative intent.
He [Ted Cruz] is the same as [a true natural born Citizen] makes no difference in this modern very ignorant society. So are Anchor babies and the Children of Birth tourists. As time goes on, I expect the subset of "natural born citizens" to look very much like the world population.Let me restate my fear about becoming too complacent about the apparent complete watering down of the original Constitutional meaning of natural born Citizen. I fear the dems will not hesitate to use every trick in the book to ensure the victory of their own candidate, including waiting to challenge Cruz's eligibility until after it is too late to field another candidate (they will use the "fact" that Ted Cruz was foreign born while aka obama was not).
There is no longer a distinction as makes any difference.
From a strategic dem point of view (the actual facts notwithstanding), this is a key difference between the background of Ted Cruz and aka obama. It won't matter that it is a completely arbitrary distinction once the original Constitutional meaning of natural born Citizen has been thoroughly blown up by the progressive, relativistic interpretation of the Constitution as a "living, breathing" document. The dems will pick whatever interpretation suits their agenda (the ends justify the means don'cha-know).
I fear that if Cruz runs and becomes our candidate, the dems will lay in wait until the die is cast, then they along with their compliant regime-stream media will raise all holy heck to sway the LoFo public, possibly bringing a court eligibility challenge and then they most certainly will mount a challenge the second after Ted Cruz's winning count is tallied in the electoral college. You know that such underhanded tactics are a very real possibility with the dems.
There is a very simple way to put an end to this possibility before it even starts -- if and when Ted Cruz declares his candidacy, at the earliest possibly moment, he must seek a definitive ruling from the SCOTUS confirming that he is a modern era "natural born citizen."
Does anybody disagree with this?
I agree with all that, DL. Anchor baby is not what was in mind.
Their political arm, the Democrats, will file lawsuits for any and all reasons imaginable, and they will of course get "standing" because so many judges are Liberal worms who can be on both sides of an issue depending upon who benefits.
Even if they prevail in court, the damage done to the campaign by all the dirty little insinuations will leave the public thinking their is something wrong. These insinuations by the news people will cost votes. Whether it will cost enough, I cannot say. I suppose it depends on who they run against him.
But yes, I see the Media and their Political arm, the Democrats, doing everything they can to put a taint on him. That they would just roll over and ignore the topic is wishful thinking. They hate him and they fear him. (And with good reason, in my opinion. )
Good. We have an area of common agreement. That's always nice.
We also agree that Ted Cruz is the best potential candidate on the scene.
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.