Posted on 02/20/2016 8:52:39 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
We can assume treason hyperbole or is it your intention to post the citations to these cases on natural born citizen ship.
Santorum and Jindall dropped out because they had no support.
(7) a person born outside of the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen yearsThis is the clause that makes Ted Cruz a "citizen of the United States at birth.
The Birthers make up all sorts of nonsense, such as claiming there is some third class of citizen (other than natural-born and naturalized), or that Congress doesn't have the power to define the term NBC (but that some Swiss writer does).
As for Rubio:
(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereofseems to confer him NBC status, assuming his parents were here legally ("subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States).
The bench was the whole reason the GOP went along with the fig leaf resolution for McCain as cover for The Usurper.
The goal that both parties share is changing the Constitution withut the hassle of amending it.
Confuse people about the clear meaning and intent of a three word phrase and voila, we make every anchor baby and Winston Churchill eligible.
Jindal, Haley, Rubio, Cruz are all ineligible, as is Barry Soetoro.
This flaw in reasoning caused an immediate uproar because it was recognized that by allowing this interpretation we could have Americans born in Britain and being both American & British citizens. It was for that reason that the law was changed in 1795 by an act titled as follows:
United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject" (January 29, 1795). One of the striking difference in the new act was the ommission of the phrase natural born citizen. Now the act was purely about naturalization and citizenship.
And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:
Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:
Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
It should be noted that the term resident at that time meant having declared an intent to reside permanently in the USA and become a citizen, not just to dwell in the US.
They already have sorted it out and freepers in this thread have provided the references. Its just that people are trying to create room for their chosen candidate so they are trying to muddy the waters.
“present”
The Donald tweeted? How cool is that.
But why has he let Megyn off the hook? He hasn’t tweeted about her in days.
Ha ha. No one is completely honest even if they try to be if you define honesty strictly.
What I meant is that one of Trump’s most appealing characteristics is his candor. His habit of speaking the truth as he sees it has shone a lot of sunshine during this campaign season.
You have taken a phrase out of context. That phrase is a proviso limiting the previous phrase. Here it is in context:
And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:The father has to be a citizen of the United States.Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:
Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
I wondered that too. But I also turn it around a bit. Are they doing something also to promote foreigners (diversity/globalism) to run? The one worlders would like nothing more than to have foreigners qualify to run as US president. Have they intentionally gamed the system so that the ones who appeal to the base and are allowed to advance are only those who can advance their goal for foreigner presidents?
Both Rubio and Cruz, if elected right after the Obama travesty, would make it almost impossible to ever deny anyone with merely the slightest trace of US citizenship the “right” to become president. It’s “a Republic, if you can keep it.” I’m sure Ben Franklin would be shaking his head — ‘they couldn’t keep it.’
No.
They were clearly dissatisfied with the definition in 1790 and specifically repealed the act 5 years later. That act is nothing to hand your hat or our country’s security on. Its not Cruz per se; it’s all the other camels that could come into the tent if we reject the protection the Founders erected for America.
The argument you are making, is made up out of thin air. It has no case law behind. NONE.
There is SCOTUS precedent on "two types of citizenship," but that is in light of the 14th amendment, and neither the 14th amendment nor the case law will help you.
I have seen arguments that are based just on the constitution. Additionally one could look to case law as it applies the Act of Congress that you cite.
I'm not suggesting you do that, and I have no interest in further discussion with you. You are a big boy, and you can either look the materials up, or stand pat. Makes no difference to me, whatsoever.
You are inserting words into a statute.
I believe this is the person the author of this piece was referring to.
Just a brief question, what is “treason hyperbole?”
I’m happy for them to put themselves on record saying no lameduck SCOTUS appointees but I am not foolish enough to believe that there is any force in their SR other than the risk of looking foolish to their constituents.
That’s exactly what is at play here. Changing the Constitution without changing it, allowing the entry of foreign influence that was the purpose of the requirement.
I noticed no one took up my question from the beginning of the thread.
Obama told us he was born a British Subject.
Who believes Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, Monroe, Madison, etc. would have found him to be a natural born citizen?
Two men with yuge, egotistical, reality show tempers who should not be entrusted with a position that requires moral authority and a profound understanding of our Constitution.
But of course, you may need to get your prescription updated.
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.