Posted on 02/02/2016 4:36:59 PM PST by 11th Commandment
On the same day he won the Republican Iowa caucus, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas got a favorable decision from the Illinois Board of Elections, which ruled that he met the citizenship criteria to appear on the state's primary ballot.
Two objectors, Lawrence Joyce and William Graham, had challenged Cruz's presidential bid with the board, contending that his name should not appear on the March 15 ballot because his candidacy did not comply with Article II of the Constitution.
In response to the filings, Cruz's lawyers relied on Supreme Court precedent, legal history and articles from noted constitutional scholars to defend the view that he is in fact "natural born" within the meaning in the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
I’m sorry, I’m on your side. I didn’t mean it to go to you. I think I’m just so frustrated that intelligent people can’t or won’t understand I’m not paying attention.
I can't wait to hear what they think the Second Amendment means.
There is no birthright citizenship...that was made up whole cloth by the courts who have no business doing Congress’ job of naturalizing citizens.
Besides, even if anchor babies are citizens under some farked up decision by the courts....they’re certainly not natural-born Citizens.
The "law" you keep using is a naturalization law, the only kind of law Congress is empowered by the Constitution to enact.
Please do, however, keep using that naturalization law as your erroneous vehicle of choice.
U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section provides that Congress has the power to enact Rules of Naturalization. Notice that it doesn’t say Rules of Citizenship. It says Naturalization, and it is the application of citizenship to those that do not have citizenship through natural means (NBC) or provided through the Constitution (founding fathers).
So Congressional legislation in regards to citizenship is a rule of Naturalization. Congress can only define citizenship requirements for those naturalized. This was done intentionally to prevent Congress from enacting law to revoke a NBCs citizenship.
Any law enacted by Congress to grant citizenship is naturalization. If you notice, there is no Congressional legislation for those born in the US, and having jurisdiction. The processes and requirements vary and are defined within the legislation. For example, Congressional legislation requires that persons born to foreign parents outside of the US must be a legal resident for 14 years and take a test and oath to get citizenship. And within the same legislation, require that all persons born to US citizen parents outside of the US to file paperwork x, y, and z to enact citizenship for their child at the time of birth. Both are processes of naturalization with different requirements for enacting citizenship, but both are resulting in naturalized citizens.
LOL
Non sequitur.
That’s quite all right.
I want nothing to do with you, and prefer that you want nothing to do with me, either.
Thus far Trump is the only one willing to speak without the PC trash about what has and continues to happen to US. I have no confidence that Jesus, I mean Cruz or Rabbio cares one whit about Obama’s illegal invasion.
Cruz and Rabbio’s donors own them and when one peeks behind who owns them it does not indicate maintaining US a sovereign nation.
I will add God is in control so I have no illusions about what the political/legal class have intentions to do to US. Sometimes people have to learn the hard way.
Arthur is rumored to be from Canada, but is said to be from Vermont. There is no substantial proof that he wasn’t an NBC born in Vermont. It was only speculation. Obama is the only president that was elected and wasn’t eligible. The only reason he is in office is because of PC BS and our Congress and SC is a bunch of pansies.
A nbc shouldn’t change with the times. When Cruz was born 10 year residency requirement.now 5 year residency...next year could be 1 year.etc
You mean apart from the fact that it is an actual requirement?
. I wonder to what extent the birther movement helped to energize pro-Obama voters, out of a sense that his GOP birther critics were a bunch of scumbags.
None. What energized pro-Obama voters is his color. He was elected on no merit beyond that. The thought of having a "black" President gave the Media people orgasms. They elected him with their biased coverage.
It is a shame that the first black President had to be an idiot.
Don't say that. He might reappear :-)
It doesn’t. Congress can only enact legislation to grant citizenship for those that don’t have already have citizenship through natural means (NBC) or granted directly via the Constitution.
Please reread my post.
“This is settled law.”
There is nothing settled about the issue. What you are witnessing is the subversion and overthrow of the Constitution and the Republic which has been ongoing ever since the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The Soviet Union also had a Constitution which was subverted and treated as a worthless piece of paper too. These corrupt politicians of Illinois succeed in perpetuating this corruption because people like those right here on FR condone the criminal conduct. Benjamin Franklin warned it would be up to the American people to “keep” the Republic if they could. Just as the U.S. voters failed to “keep” the Republic when they put the British citizen in the White House, Chester Arthur, so too are the present day citizens and non-citizens failing and even promoting the corruption and straight forward denouncement of the Constitution, the Republic, the Rule of Law, and most everything they stand for in America. This corruption is shameful and can onoly lead to domestic tyranny, oppression, poverty, and death.
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
I assert that there is no limitation on that power. If you look at the following clause, there is also no limitation on the authority of Congress over bankruptcy laws.
You then stated that my assertion does not naturally follow the statement. Please explain how you came to that conclusion, or by way of rebuttal, show how Congress is limited by the Constitution in it's authority over all rules of naturalization.
That was the point of my post
Subsection (7) citizens must satisfy the condition subsequent of five years continuous residence within the United States between the ages of fourteen and twenty-eight, a requirement held to be constitutional, 1146 which means in effect that for constitutional purposes, according to the prevailing interpretation, there is a difference between persons born or naturalized in, that is, within, the United States and persons born outside the confines of the United States who are statutorily made citizens. 1147 The principal dif ference is that the former persons may not be involuntarily expatriated whereas the latter may be, subject only to due process protections. 1148 - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation36.html#4
Chicago, Bugsy Daley, Rahm Immanual, Obama, Hitlary...that means...He isn't.
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.