Official Notice of Dispute challenges 4 candidates' NH eligibility (Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, Santorum)

The Post & Email ^ | 11/13/2015 | Robert Laity

[ScottWalkerForPresident2016]

I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a "Natural-Born Citizen" in order to be President under Article II, Sec. 1.

I am disputing the bona-fides of:

Marco Rubio - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S., however his parents were un-naturalized "permanent resident" Cuban citizens when he was born.

Ted Cruz - NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother who may have natualized as a Canadian.

Bobby Jindal - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to parents who were un-naturalized citizens of Indiaa at the time of Bobby Jindal's bitth.

Rick Santorum - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick Santorum's birth.

[DiogenesLamp]

And I'm still waiting for someone to point to where the "laws of nature and of nature's God" are listed so I can read the definition it gives for natural-born citizen. I guess I'll be waiting in vain.

I am reminded of the immortal words of Lex Luthor (Played by Gene Hackman) in the original Superman movie.

Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.

You seem to be in over your head. This topic seems too complex for you to discuss. You appear to be the sort that can be led to water, but you can't be made to drink it.

If you can't grasp the complexity of the writing, perhaps a picture will help?

[Political Junkie Too]

And I'm still waiting for someone to point to where the "laws of nature and of nature's God" are listed...

I posted Thomas Jefferson's words where he laid it out: that all men are created equal; that we have the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that we have the right to form civil structures from the consent of the governed; and to throw off these structures if they become obstacles to the preceding.

But you obviously rejected it.

Be ar in mind that Jefferson wrote this 11 years before the Constitution was drafted. Any relevance to natural born citizenry comes from the right of the people to form their own governments, extended to mean the People are free to decide for themselves whom they want as fellow citizens; and to throw off their government if they no longer consent to its behavior.

Given that some argue that NBC is settled, others argue that the meaning is still in flux, and still others argue that the Supreme Court should unequivocally settle this one and for all, consent of the governed has not been established.

The Top Three Google Search Links

Laws of Nature

What is the Law of Nature’s God?

The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God: The True Foundation of American Law

-PJ

[Nero Germanicus]

Just because some people posting on internet blogs don’t agree with a judicial ruling doesn’t mean that the ruling is wrong. Judicial rulings have to stand the test of time, not unlike the application of the scientific method: is the ruling replicated by different courts with different attorneys, judges and justices, over time. Eventually an incorrect ruling will be reversed but it can take a considerable amount of time to accomplish that.
The legislative branch can also render a bad court ruling moot by passing countering legislation.
Only about five members of Congress have ever mentioned Article II, Section 1 natural born citizenship as a legitimate issue and several of them are no longer in Congress.
Members of Congress can seek a Writ of Quo Warranto against an ineligible elected official which forces that official to prove that they are indeed elgible for the position they hold. No members of Congress ever sought a Writ of Quo Warranto.
The voters can get rid of an ineligible elected offical in the next election.

[DoodleDawg]

How disingenuous can you be?

How disingenuous do you want?

"Is a child born in the US to parents who are US citizens become a US citizen?"Naturally!-DoodleDawg-Where is that written?

Right here.

Now can you show me where it says that only a child born in the U.S. of citizen parents is a natural-born citizen?

[DoodleDawg]

You seem to be in over your head. This topic seems too complex for you to discuss. You appear to be the sort that can be led to water, but you can't be made to drink it.

Maybe because you see the secrets of the universe and all I see in your hand is a gum wrapper. You define natural-born citizen the way you want it to be and expect people to accept it. Well sorry to disappoint.

[DoodleDawg]

But you obviously rejected it.

Because nowhere in there is a definition of natural-born citizen.

Given that some argue that NBC is settled, others argue that the meaning is still in flux, and still others argue that the Supreme Court should unequivocally settle this one and for all, consent of the governed has not been established.

That's ridiculous.

[DoodleDawg]

But you obviously rejected it.

Because nowhere in there is a definition of natural-born citizen.

Given that some argue that NBC is settled, others argue that the meaning is still in flux, and still others argue that the Supreme Court should unequivocally settle this one and for all, consent of the governed has not been established.

That's ridiculous.

[Nero Germanicus]

Who gets to determne what the laws of nature are and how they are o be applied?

[Tau Food]

Given that some argue that NBC is settled, others argue that the meaning is still in flux, and still others argue that the Supreme Court should unequivocally settle this one and for all, consent of the governed has not been established.

I believe that the Constitution is clear insofar as it states that a President must be a "natural born citizen" and that he is to be chosen by a majority of Electors. It is all very simple when we just follow the Constitution and allow the Electors to perform their Constitutional function.

The difficulty arises when some people decide that they want to interfere with the Electors. In 2008 and 2012 (and in other times in our history), people who did not like the outcome of the election concocted elaborate new definitions in an effort to force Electors to choose the candidate that they favored. That strategy has never worked and the Electors once again voted for the candidate that they had been pledged to support.

That particular candidate (Obama) cannot run again and so the elaborate definitions will drift away like smoke in the wind. However, if the next winner is a person who was not born in the United States or had less than two parents who were citizens of the U.S. at the time of his/her birth, we can expect that there will be some people who design new elaborate definitions in an effort to interfere with the Electors. That effort too will fail and once again the new elaborate definitions will drift away like smoke in the wind. No real harm is ever done and lots o books and tapes get written and sold so it is all good for the economy.

Just stick with the Constitution. It requires only that a candidate be a natural born citizen. The Founders told the Electors as much as the Founders wanted to tell the Electors and that should be enough for all of us. We have been holding these elections for over 200 years and I think that the system works just fine even though the people often elect someone other than the candidate that I prefer. They will not be getting many more chances to thwart me, though. ;-)

[DiogenesLamp]

Just because some people posting on internet blogs don’t agree with a judicial ruling doesn’t mean that the ruling is wrong.

Sure. It can certainly be wrong on it's own merits, which are easily pointed out by means other than internet blogs.

Judicial rulings have to stand the test of time

Which they don't. Just ask the Wong court how their Plessey ruling turned out.

not unlike the application of the scientific method

The court's methodology is the very opposite of the scientific method. In legal procedure, "Precedent", (That's the way we've always done things! fallacy) is the norm, and results can be failures without stimulating any need to change procedures.

In scientific methodology, a procedure known to produce bad results is discarded. In jurisprudence, it is compelled for the sake of consistency with previous mistakes.

The legislative branch can also render a bad court ruling moot by passing countering legislation.

Very badly written and ambiguous amendments are difficult to repeal when you have chopped off all the states which would have opposed it when you first created it.

The 14th amendment is a kludge, and has caused much mischief due to it's very badly written text, and the very immoral manner in which it was passed.

The voters can get rid of an ineligible elected offical in the next election.

When the ineligible occupant engages in ballot box stuffing, then the election system is no longer a viable method for removal. I believe his media allies make it virtually impossible to remove him through the democratic process. They deliberately warp the public's minds by not covering the man in the hostile manner they would a Republican.

Democracy cannot work if it is impossible to get accurate information past the palace guards. The media is responsible for undermining the democratic process in this country, and nothing is going to get fixed until their propaganda system is neutered.

[Tau Food]

Who gets to determne what the laws of nature are and how they are o be applied?

Already you have discovered the attraction of natural law. You get to design the rules based upon your discovery of objective principles concerning how the world functions. The idea is that you search for and discover truths about the world that are enduring and immutable.

The usual goal is to arrive as quickly as is philosophically possible at the conclusion that all compulsion is evil, that all government is founded upon evil compulsion and that all taxes are theft. The rest is left up to you. ;-)

[noinfringers2]

As much as I admire Cruz for his self qualities including love for the US I have reservations as to his meeting the intention(s) of the established Constitution from the Founders. For all the decisions of law since the Founders written Declarations, the history and words of the Founders cannot be redone to color the original intention(s). As such the traditional requirement of heritage of parents still holds for me. I can speak of this based on being a child of non-naturalized parents from Russia. Such a situation did not prevent either my brother who was killed fighting WWII on Okinawa and myself a vet who served in the Army on Leyte. I was taught that the Constitution was the foremost and supreme guide for the US.

[DiogenesLamp]

You define natural-born citizen the way you want it to be and expect people to accept it.

I define "natural" in the only manner that it is possible for a rational human being to define it.

"Not requiring the intervention of man."

Words mean things.

I would tell you to look up the etymology of words such as "Nature, Native, Natal, National, Natural, etc but given what I perceive to be your level of intellect, I don't think you would know how.

Suffice it to say you can learn a lot about the correct meaning of a word by exploring from whence it came.

[DiogenesLamp]

Who gets to determne what the laws of nature are and how they are to be applied?

The same people who determine when mathematical formulas are correct. Those with the necessary intellect to do the math.

[DiogenesLamp]

Now can you show me where it says that only a child born in the U.S. of citizen parents is a natural-born citizen?

Yes. Millions of excluded citizens in the form of Slaves, Indians, and the Children of British Loyalists are insufficient for you to grasp the point.

And of course the explicitly written document I posted earlier in the thread wasn't enough either.

The word "Dense" comes to mind.

I could tell you what Chief Justice John Marshall said on the subject, but i'm pretty sure that wouldn't make a dent in your head either.

I could tell you what Justice Bushrod Washington said, I could tell you what Benjamin Franklin said, I could tell you what James Wilson said, I could tell you what James Monroe said, I could show you what James Madison did, and on and on and on and on, and I doubt any of it would make a dent in your preferred belief.

Again, I don't perceive you as having the intellectual heft necessary to discuss this topic.

[DiogenesLamp]

Because nowhere in there is a definition of natural-born citizen.

There is no definition of "Arms" as in the Second Amendment either, but people of the time period who were not idiots, knew what the term meant without an explicit definition.

As James Madison said:

What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.

[GregNH]

Now can you show me where it says that only a child born in the U.S. of citizen parents is a natural-born citizen?

What else would that child be?

[DiogenesLamp]

people who did not like the outcome of the election concocted elaborate new definitions

Very clever of those "people who did not like the outcome of the election " to have time traveled back to 1817 to concoct their elaborate new definition.

In fact, it looks like they even traveled back to ~1764 when that definition first landed on our continent. (here referred to by James Otis, the man that lit the fires of revolution. Excerpt from his Pamphlet, "The rights of the British Colonies asserted and proved." )

Diabolically clever troublemakers, aren't they?

[DoodleDawg]

Words mean things.

Not in the way you mean, from what I can tell. You define "natural" as "not requiring the intervention of man". How does that relate to determining natural-born citizen? Man has to define it otherwise your definition is so broad as to be useless. "Not requiring the intervention of man citizenship"?

You can blabber on all you want. You can claim that natural-born citizens are only people born in the country of citizen parents. But you cannot point to a clear, single, universally accepted definition of natural-born citizen that agrees with you. And since you can't then it is up to Congress to define it by determining, as part of their Constitutional power to set uniform rules of naturalization, who doesn't need to be naturalized. You don't want Congress to do that? Fine, then who defines it and where?

[Tau Food]

If I were an Elector, I would not learn anything about my constitutional obligations by reading those two pages. In all your research, have you found any primary sources that an Elector might find determinative?