Posted on 02/19/2016 11:30:09 AM PST by Coronal
IT WAS NOT A DECISION ON THAT CASE ALONE. YOU QUOTE LEGAL REASONING ONLY WHICH SIGNIFIES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Wrong, the law has allowed for NBC birth right for people born abroad to US citizens since 1787 and the subsequent naturalization act of 1790.
Not if they grow up to be someone nappyhead and the rest of the flying monkeys don't approve of. Hell no. /s
“Rulings don’t occur in a vacuum.”
Yes, it’s called precedent.
it makes the whole thing a lot more fun, and for me, that is the function of this election cycle. See tag line.
Don't confuse the retreads and mindless trumbies with facts and history. They have made up their mind because their False Prophet told them so. That's all that matters. Tomorrow if the Mouth said we should all pool our retirement investments so everyone could have a little, Monday they'd be signing over accounts.
Obama was born in Kenya that is a foriegn president. Birtherscare funny people.
And, what about military families? My niece was born in Germany to a military man. What about her?
Whats sad is the other 27 candidates that are horrible don’t bother these birther folks.
Fair question. And you know the answer: It doesn't.
And then, let me pose this one to you: "Where in the Constitution (excluding Amendments - I want this to be the Framers' view) does it say that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are automatically citizens?
To make this simple, I'll stipulate: it's nowhere in there.
The Constitution nowhere sets any conditions on citizenship by birth. None. Citizenship is equally well conferred by lineage birth as it is by any other way, and certainly mores than citizenship by the accidental or incidental location of birth.
As Emmerich Vattel said in The Law of Nations: "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Nevertheless, it's not in the Constitution. Therefore it is a debatable proposition, and one that has seen much controversy. It's not easily settled, but when it is it will be settled in favor of the expression of the plenary power of Congress to legislate in the name of the Sovereign, We the People.
I was wondering about a state court making a decision that concerns federal law. Would they have standing? Of course it is Illinois and they would like nothing more than to cause trouble in the Republican party.
Ok, then.
Article II, Section 1 states that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither......”
Why did the framers insert “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Surely citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution are part of the first part of the sentence. Or were they?
Before 4 July 1776, they were British citizens. They specifically exempted themselves because they were natural born British citizens, not natural born U.S. Citizens and knew they were not eligible to become president. I see proof positive that the framers understood one can not be a natural citizen of two countries because his loyalties would be split.
Which is why both Cruz and Rubio are ineligible.
You’re adding your own definition of Natural Born Citizen.
Not the legal definition.
This might help - http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/
I do not think so. The framers themselves made the definition by adding themselves into the mix.
Zzzzzzz
Wrong law suit. He won’t be deposing Trump to find out what he thinks here.
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.