Posted on 03/10/2016 9:12:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The title of the Act doesn't control. One will find the language of the 14th amendment in the 1952 Naturalization Act! What controls (see numerous SCOTUS precedents) is whether citizenship depends solely on an Act of Congress. If so, the person is naturalized pursuant to a power of Congress, whether they go through an individualized "naturalization process" (or "naturalization procedure") or not.
I do agree that a person cannot be both natural born and naturalized, but Judge Pellegrini thinks that it is possible for one person to be both natural born and naturalized. He doesn't say so in his opinion, at least not in so many words, but he is quoted as saying it in roughly those words, in open court.
“In the end, Elliott lost his case. Later in the day, Pellegrini issued an order leaving Cruz on the ballot, finding legal and statutory history that shows that a “natural born citizen” includes any person who is a U.S. citizen from birth.”
So, it’s over?
This case? “In the end, Elliott lost his case. Later in the day, Pellegrini issued an order leaving Cruz on the ballot, finding legal and statutory history that shows that a “natural born citizen” includes any person who is a U.S. citizen from birth.”
At the bottom of the article, if you read it.
The decision is appealable. I haven't heard if it will be, and there is a time limit for taking an appeal; usually 10-30 days or so.
For example, the labeling success of "McCarthyism" shut down McCarthy's corrective feedback at a critical time. That success eventually lead US here.
"Bircher" is another example. The list is long, but not very distinguished.
Do you know what the word “ALL” means? The commandments were NOT just for Israel. Israel was to teach them to the world, so to prepare the world for the Messiah to come.
Shalom
Thou shalt not kill
So...now what is the term or phrase, legal or otherwise, that is defined by "born in country to citizen parents"?
What is the term or phrase now used to describe someone who by birth is a citizen of only the place they were born because there simply aren't any other options?
The birth citizenship of "born here to citizen parents" is a unique and exclusive birth inheritance, with only the one obvious option for citizenship, right?
That's obviously not the same as an "anchor baby" born here with foreign citizen parents, nor is it the same as someone born in a foreign land with a foreign citizen parent, so what is it called?
What is the term now used for that "single option only" kind of citizenship at/by birth?
Or, for that matter, what power or law is used to make those three obviously different examples all be considered as exactly the same thing with the same name?
Parents and place each pass on or contribute an equal part citizenship at birth, right?
Then what power or law is used to negate the other birth citizenship options of someone who wasn't born here to citizen parents so that only the American citizenship option/part is honored and the other option(s) is(are) ignored?
Is America so powerful that a single citizen parent or simply having been born on American soil automatically cancels out all other citizenship options?
And other countries are okay with that?
"America assimilates. Deal with it."
Deu 4:41 Then Moses separated three cities beyond the Jordan, toward the rising of the sun, 42 for him who killed someone to flee there, he who kills his neighbor unintentionally, without having hated him in time past, and might flee to one of these cities and live... (see also Dt 19)
And this is why to this day, we have varying laws regarding those who die at the hands of another. It is the intent that matters. Those who do so intentionally are not of Elohim, while those who do so unintentionally and repent, to them is possibility of eternal life.
Just to be clear. I think Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, McCain were all ineligible. Imho, if you have no ther options for citizenship then you are a NBC.. Call me crazy....
Thank you.
-- Then what power or law is used to negate the other birth citizenship options of someone who wasn't born here to citizen parents so that only the American citizenship option/part is honored and the other option(s) is(are) ignored? --
In a nutshell, choice of residence. Cruz was a much a citizen of Cuba at birth, as he was a citizen of the US. Cuba has a similar, "born abroad of one citizen parent" law. If his parents had emigrated to Cuba, Ted would be mostly (maybe entirely, for practical purposes) Cuban. Similar if they had stayed in Canada. He'd be Canadian - and if he didn't live in the US for five continuous years between the ages of 14 and 23, he would NOT be a US citizen at all.
-- Is America so powerful that a single citizen parent or simply having been born on American soil automatically cancels out all other citizenship options? --
No! It is generally quite considerate of the law, and the will of each individual. There are literally thousands of citizenship cases under US jurisdiction, and probably half of them find a person to be a citizen of another country.
- -So...now what is the term or phrase, legal or otherwise, that is defined by "born in country to citizen parents"? --
Historically, "natural born citizen." This has been confused ONLY to the extend that Great Britain, and the US (once in 1790) used that term in a naturalization statute. Even that shouldn't be confusing, but it is made so by forces that aim to elevate family over nation, for a position that is supposed be as nationalistic as it can possibly be.
A minor quibble, “murder” is to kill without justification, although I can see how “unintentionally” fits that bill too. Certainly hatred is not justification to kill, but The Bible is full of warfare and intentional killing, which doesn’t rise to “murder.”
Ratzah can be used in context of a non-murder killing. See numbers 35 in the Hebrew for examples. The KJV translation is plausible.
But you are missing the point. I accept that in context of the law as a whole, the subject of the 6th commandment is unjustified, unexcused intentional killing of a human being. We went over all that in crim law. But If you are going to stake your claim on carrying forward the entire Old Covenant legal structure, why not start with something we can agree on? Like murder. Trump is for it, if the dad is a rapist. Do you agree with Trump? Or with the law of God?
Peace,
SR
I’m just using the words that are in my bible and it uses the words “intentionally” and “unintentionally”. And while yes, the bible is full of war, it is not the war itself that is lesson being taught, it is the “intent” of the one leading the war and when the Creator is leading the war so to cleanse that which he created from all evil, then who are we to judge our Creator? And so yes, these wars do not give rise to murder when it is our Creator at the helm. Those killed have chosen to die rather than to live as exampled in the historical account of Jericho & Rahab’s family who chose not to pick up the sword, but to serve their Creator...Rahab later becoming an important link in the genealogy of Messiah.
And so I think we should not go down these lawyerly roads when it comes to the Word of God as He is very capable of teaching us all using the language He has provided us to learn from. Going down these roads is the equivalent of straining gnats, to which there is no profit.
And so I must biblically disagree with you in your use of the term justification because we do have the command regarding killing someone who breaks into our house. That done in darkness is unintentional & that done in daylight is intentional. In both cases it would seem there should be justification for the killing, however, Elohim says there is not. And so justification in and of itself is not the end all be all to this subject.
Shalom
If Ted Cruz wasn't a "naturalized" to somehow become a "natural born" citizen, then what body of law is used to ignore or negate or cancel out his other citizenship options?
Someone born here to citizen parents has no need of law to remove other options, but Cruz did.
What law(s) or power was used to make the rest go away so that only American citizenship remained.
How is that not naturalization? If it's not, then what is that legal process called?
Have we invented a new term for a new type of citizenship: a naturalized natural born citizen? How insane have we become?
I agree with that sentiment. But sometimes, some sort of "lawerly" or just plain regular folk thinking can insert itself. If the creator both calls one to war, and tells one to not intentionally kill, there will be a conflict in one's mind.
I have to say, I am so sick of Christian hypocrisy, where there is no evidence of the example of forgiveness that Messiah set before us. To not dwell on the past, but to look to the present and judge the fruits of the present as Elohim took the bad fruits of our pasts and placed them on His Son, Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah, who died to take the upon Himself, the sins of the ENTIRE world.
We do not know what tomorrow brings, we only have today and today, the only one truly standing up for the Word of Elohim is Donald Trump. He may not be doing so perfectly, but his heart is in the right place. He is not thinking of himself as all the others are, Trump is putting our country first, you & me!
And FYI, Paul says that what you call the “old” covenant is the new covenant. It is the same substance, it is just that it is no longer written in stone, but upon our hearts, so to do it, to obey the Father and Messiah obeyed the Father. As the Father and the Son are one, so are His commands. We have a Constitution and from it hangs all the statutes passed by Congress. Mt 22 tells us the same is for Elohim, from the 10 Commandments (Elohim's Constitution) hangs all the Torah and the Prophets. He gave all to Moses on the mountain at the same time. They are inseparable, just as the Father and the Son are inseparable.
Exo 24:12 And YHWH said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain and be there, while I give you tablets of stone, and the Torah and the command which I have written, to teach them.” ... see Mt 22:34-23:3
Shalom
And therein lay the problem. The Creator is not the leader of any army today, men of the flesh are. Since the Babylonian captivity, the Ark of the Covenant which represents Elohim's seat of Authority that went before the army of Israel in war, has been no longer. No longer was Israel to war with the nations, it was to submit to the nations that Elohim placed over them. Isaiah prophesies this, also Jeremiah, Ezekiel & even Daniel prophesy the freedom removed from Israel, that until Messiah returns, Israel is to serve the nations, not be served by the nations.
And thus the reason Messiah teaches to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us and to pray for those who persecute us. There is reward for those who heed His Word and there are consequences for those who do not. It does not necessarily mean eternal death for those who do not, however, it surely does not include reigning and serving Messiah when He returns to rule this earth for 1000 years.
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.