Posted on 01/09/2016 8:42:14 PM PST by randita
After Cruz gets IA delegates, Trump has standing. He’s the only person who can do this.
Shooting him down for it would be like throwing away our lungs just out of spite. We’re smarter than that. We have to be, or the country will perish - as in literally rot to death.
.
Trump voted for Obama twice.
That is all anyone needs to know.
Cruz to victory!
.
You are a hopeless bullshitter.
Source?
2008 I could believe because nobody vetted Obama; the threatened media didn’t allow mainstream discussion about Obama’s negatives, and Obama’s opponents were all threatened into silence. But after seeing the deal with Obama’s eligibility mess I’d find it hard to believe he voted for Obama in 2012. Has he said he voted for Obama in 2012?
.
Yes.
I’m watching too, to see what Trump does. Somebody will surely tell him that Cruz can’t get a judicial declaration and there has to be an actual case leading to a decision. That would be the perfect time for Trump to show his bona fides by protecting the R’s from getting a candidate that the dems’ corruption could get disqualified. Would Trump keep the R’s from playing a game of chicken when so much is at stake? I hope so. I’ll be watching to see what he does.
I think it would be less of a risk to him if R’s acknowledged the legitimate danger and refused to demonize him for bringing it up. That’s exactly how Obama got into office: the threatened media ridiculed as “conspiracy mongers” anybody who actually paid attention to what Obama was saying, his history, his connections, the forgeries, etc. What I’m saying is let’s not do that again.
At the beginning of this year I had no hope for America. None. Jeb was inevitable because conservatives were going to divide their vote like they did to give us Romney, and it would be a choice between Hillary and Hillary Lite. Then these 2 men came forward and refused to battle each other until the threat of Jeb was neutralized. They were both very protective of America, giving her a real alternative to the corrupt status quo. They were smarter than their own followers.
And I watched how both guys worked to neutralize the effect of a treasonous media. Brilliant!
I think both these guys know what we’re up against, and I think we should give them credit for the minefield they’ve navigated so well, so far. PLEASE let’s don’t fall for the dem/media/GOPe “divide and conquer the conservatives” Lucy with the football game plan. They know that our own party spirit is the biggest threat this nation faces, at a time when we have a real chance to expose the 2008 coup and get back the rule of law.
We love America. Let’s save her. Let’s stop making it so hard for both/either of these guys to do what is necessary to save her.
What, I’m lying about what I think? Listen, you can insult me all you want. It speaks to your character, not mine.
Link please.
You can NEVER stop scurrilous attacks by unprincipled people. Anyone who has spent any time on Free Republic over the past couple of months knows that. Please don’t misunderstand. I am pointing my fingers in BOTH directions.
This NBC crap with respect to Ted Cruz merely serves to discredit anyone who serves it up.
And Allan Grayson? Give me a break. He has no more credibility than Kim Jong Un.
Hillary Clinton will NOT be the Democrat nominee. She will be indicted and will be in the middle of a trial on Federal felony charges. No time to run a campaign. I know that there are a lot of people who say that the Obama administration will not allow this. Take it from me, they will. Get ready for Elizabeth Warren, folks.
Nominating Trump is a death wish manifestation, not just for the Republican Party, but for the country. It will ensure another eight years of socialist/statist rule, more damage done and more damage gone unfixed. IMO.
“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.”
The American colonists used the fundamental documents, such as the Magna Carta, to provide the foundation for their colonial governments beginning with the Roanoke, Jamestown, Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, and Maryland colonies, among others. Due to the expense, rarity, and problems of obtaining legal books and manuscripts, the American colonists were mor often than not on their own to develop their own statutory law and American common law mostly in isolation from similar developments in England, Scotland, and Continental Europe. As the proprietary owners of the colonies gave way to the Royal Colonial administrations, the amount of English legal documents and their influence in the colonial governments increased to bring the colonial governments more under the influence of some English legal doctrines, but remained stubbornly different in many others. The former Dutch colony of New Amsterdam was particularly influential among many of the American colonies with respect to resisting the English encroachments upon the previous Dutch practices of giving women more legal identity and rights. So, when it came time to contemplate a new Republic founded upon the principles of natural law being experimented with by the Dutch Republics and the legal scholars in Continental Europe, the American Founding Fathers ended the English common law as the basis for the U.S. Government in favor of the new natural law basis, yet they continued and borrowed from the past and future English common law wheneve it wa found to be suitable to do so without necessarily upsetting the natural law basis of the Republic. The continuation of the English, French, Spanish. Roman, and assorted other legal traditions are still evident in the thousands of legal terms found in Black’s Law Dictionary used as a standard legal reference in the U.S. courts of law. So, the fact that the 16th and 17th Century legal definitions were incorporated into the usages of naturalization of citizens in the U.S. laws is unremarkable.
“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.”
That is an entirely false conclusion, because that is already how it has been done by the United States since day one and by the American colonial governments before that. It is simply inherent in the development of naturalization and denizens versus the statutory mass naturalization of the children of citizens born abroad. The U.S. Code was revised by repealing earlier versions of these nationality laws that made the differences clearer in favor of what we have currently that deliberately tries to muddle the issue. Still, the sections I quoted elsewhere from the State Department’s Consular manuals demonstrates the differences are distinctly represented in them and the Naturalization manual does say the automatic conferring of U.S. citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad is another form of naturalization. So, no additional legislation is necessary to create was has always and is already here.
“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.”
Ted Cruz enjoys U.S. citizenship only because a manmade statutory law made him a U.S. citizen at birth if and when Ted Cruz claimed that right to U.S. Citizenship after birth in accordance with the U.S. naturalization law which the Constitution included as the power to institute a uniform system of naturalization. Given the fact that the Constitution did not grant the U.S. Federal government the power to confer U.S. citizenship upon natural born U.S. citizens, because you cannot naturalize someone who is already a natural born citizen. If Ted Cruz had been born in similar circumstances before 1934, he would not have become a U.S. citizen without naturalizing as an alien citizen. If Ted Cruz was actually a natural born citizen today, he would also have been a natural born citizen before 1934 as well.
“But there is not a third category.....is there?”
Yes, the acquisition of citizenship by a person born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents has always been treated as one of the two types of naturalization, although there has been a recent trend in the last 60 years or more to blur the actual functional distinction in the verbiage.
“For your argument to have merit, there must be.”
When you attempt to categorize like that and follow the traditions back into the history of England, you run into the problem of the citizenship doctrines changing. When William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy and King of England brought with him the feudal legal order, nationality (encompassing subjects and citizens) was determined by the doctrine of jus soli. Before too long this was found to be too inconvenient with so many prominent Englishmen fighting and living in France with their families and children being born in France. The children were unable to inherit their English estates in too many instances due o their being ruled as aliens to the Kingdom of England, despite their English fathers. Consequently, the naturalization Act of 1541 was enacted to use the legal doctrine of jus sanguinis in a limited application to resolve the inheritance dilemma. Due to the formalities of letters patent from the crown, naturalization by Parliament for aliens, and a new third method for the children of Englishmen born abroad. These categories were maintained more or less down through the centuries in one form or another. a key difference between the American form and the British form was due to the British crown claiming the allegiance of all children born under the Crown’s allegiance, whether or not their parents were aliens. The American experience varied considerably from that until the 14th Amendment and related Supreme court decisions arguably misinterpreted and misapplied legal precedent a argued by the minority opinions of the court decisions described.
“I suspect we will see this argument made and set aside for many more generations, should we actually survive the present one.”
Imagine what Trump and his brash approach could do with the 14th Amendment if it were possible to get a cooperative Republican supermajority willing and capable of impeaching some SCOTUS justices.
“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 got drawn into studying the natural born eligibility issue when I was required to research and write a paper about it for Goldwater’s election campaign cycle. We’ve had Chester Arthur, Hughes, Goldwater (who was eligible), Romney Sr., Obama, Romney Jr., Santorum, Jindal, Rubio, Cruz, and others who I don’t recall at the moment.
“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.”
The DNC has been lining up to pounce on Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, or Santorum if any one of them won the Republican primary. I know this from the comments from a number of Democrat Precinct chairmen and elected Democrats I’ve argued around with in person. Trump’s confrontation of the obvious eligibility problem was necessarily inevitable, so his timing before the primary election is more beneficial to the conservative cause than letting the DNC benefit from neglecting the issue until after the primary.
“âVery troublingâ, as trump has said...so I take his own words and throw them back in his face...”
That’s too bad, because anyone no matter how supposedly noble they are who has an eligibility issue is a potential or probable cause of defeat for the GOP and the conservative cause.
The more I learn about Trump, the more he frightens me....
“Unless there has been an act of Congress incorporating this work in its entirely into our framework of laws, or even the Vattel position on the definition of ânatural bornâ into our framework of laws, the âLaw of Nationsâ is not US law, as I factually stated.”
I have to wonder what gave you the idea that Vattel’s Law of Nations was not and “is not US law, when in fact it was the standard legal textbook on the subject for law schools, was cited as an authority for legal decisions more than other sources on the subject, was used to compose the Constitution, and was cited as a legal authority in a legal case as recently as 2008.
well, it would be mighty cowardly to stop supporting a candidate because of a non issue dark cloud.
trumps needs Cruz voters when he takes the nomination.
he would do well to stop it already.
argue on the issues.
his narcissism shows through when he does things like this and it is not appealing
Correction, Vattel wrote in French, but he was Swiss.
& if he feels threatened, he probably will...
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.