Posted on 01/09/2016 8:42:14 PM PST by randita
I'm a Trump supporter. I'm sorry this hurt , but it was going to come out sooner or later. Don't hold it against Trump at the expense of letting Hillary be President. Try to see it as politics, plain and simple.
How so? Why do you make such a conclusion?
“True only to the British Citizen. “
That is yet another totally false statement. A British Subject was a British national. A citizen of the United States and a national of the United States are both nationals as defined in the U.S. Code. The fundamental definition of nationalization remains the same as it was in 1608 and in 1541 England, See the Naturalization Act of 1541.
Type Correction:
“True only to the British Citizen. “
That is yet another totally false statement. A British Subject was a British national. A citizen of the United States and a national of the United States are both nationals as defined in the U.S. Code. The fundamental definition of naturalization remains the same as it was in 1608 and in 1541 England, See the Naturalization Act of 1541.
I was going to respond to you differently, but after reading through what you wrote about Mark Levin...I see no point...since I hold him in high esteem & you, putting it mildly do not...
I’m not afraid of a ruling. I don’t believe that SCOTUS will take it up.
Something else you may or may not consider.
Your argument, based on English and French writers, both of whom were quoted during our founding as in the Law Of Nations, by Vatel, only serve as influences to the Founders, not as the law of the land.
If we were to take your argument as 100% valid and correct, then we would need a SCOTUS decision or a written statute enacted into law that creates a third class of citizenship, where one is not natural born, not naturalized, but is a citizen of birth only, not requiring naturalization.
It follows then that Ted Cruz would be of this new category of citizenship as would numerous others, including one or two presidents, if I recall correctly.
But there is not a third category.....is there?
For your argument to have merit, there must be.
I suspect we will see this argument made and set aside for many more generations, should we actually survive the present one.
I have been alive long enough to see it made many times and usually if not entirely by the left wingers against conservatives. Last made against Romney, if I recall.
I find that Trumps use of this argument is telling, and it does not bode well for a Trump presidency that is expected by his supporters to save this country from the left.
“Very troubling”, as trump has said...so I take his own words and throw them back in his face...
Evidently these constitutional authorities (of different ideologies) do not share your beliefs. Guess there won’t be a definite answer coming. Only SCOTUS could give such a decision, but I doubt they’d hear such a case & I have little trust in a handful of the politically-minded justices currently there.
I’ve seen that piece of shoddy works being cited dozens of times, and it remains unbelievable how anyone could entertain it as a serious work for one moment of time. For example, the authors state:
“Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.”
Evidently these creatures at Harvard Law School never heard about the exception for diplomats and their families, which meant those children they are talking about were not born under the local duty of allegiance to the French Crown and were instead under the legal category of Foreigners. Being under the status of diplomats in the service of the United States, the children of John Jay retained their sole allegiance to the sovereignty of the United States of America, which was the fundamental purpose of the natural born citizen clause and its implementation.
The Federal government said in October 1896: Minor v Happersett defined a natural born citizen as born in the US to citizen parents.
It’s in their reply brief to SCOTUS. Wong Kim Ark
Is it worth the paper it’s written on? So, how did Barry Goldwater, George Romney & John McCain run for the presidency?
I tend to agree with you. The lack of intelligent thinking is quite evident here as well as the inability to recognize the powerful factors controlling the gentlemen selected to create a new form of government which the world had never seen before. The lack of seriousness and snarky attitude of certain FReepers is something I find astonishing. They may as well be for Hillery.
EVIDENCE means nothing, obviously.
Justice Gray said in Wong Kim Ark: the naturalization acts starting with 1790 a child born abroad must be born to American parents.
Parents who are citizens never meant one citizen parent.
But in 2016, that horse has been pronounced well and truly dead, and no amount of beating will revive her.
..............................................................
Was that the attitude of our Forefathers a Valley Forge?
They had been beaten and driven by the enemy, even from New York. They wintered at Valley Forge, freezing and without food, but they persevered and crossed the Delaware to soundly whip the enemy and found a new resolve to continue fighting to the bitter end. Voila, The United States of America.
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.