Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DMZFrank

“Read the decision dummy. The findings of SCOTUS are conclusive. They said that Bellei was NATURALIZED by statute.”

No, it did not.

I have read the Rogers v. Bellei case, and unlike you I am an attorney and I understand what I am reading.

Bellei was a natural born citizen.

Your making the ASSUMPTION again that natural born citizen cannot be defined by statute.

You are trying to bend the facts to fit your assumption.

Congress has defined who is a natural born citizen since 1790 — by statute.

Being a natural born citizen pursuant to the definitions of a statute is the ONLY way to be a natural born citizen.


424 posted on 04/11/2016 4:28:17 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.MoseleyComments.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies ]


To: Moseley
-- I have read the Rogers v. Bellei case, and unlike you I am an attorney and I understand what I am reading.

Bellei was a natural born citizen. --

And naturalized.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

His citizenship was taken by denaturalization, not expatriation. There is a totally different line of cases dealing with expatriation.

I'll let others read the case themselves and see if your assertion "Bellei was not naturalized by statute," holds water. I have no interest in discussion with you, you are on my twit list.

445 posted on 04/11/2016 4:56:00 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies ]

To: Moseley

Why are you being so dishonest? That 1790 law was REPEALED in 1795, and rewritten with the words “natural born” removed. As an ATTORNEY you must know that the repeal of a law means that it is as it never existed going forward from the effective date of repeal. Try claiming that the interstate Highway speed limit of 75 mph was still valid after the 55 mph limit was instituted and see if that gets you out of a ticket before it too was repealed and modified.

Any statutory definition of natural born citizen must comport with and be in furtherance of, the intent of the constitution and not the other way around. If the statute says that a Martian is forthwith defined as an Article II section 1, clause 5 NBC, than that statute unconstitutional.

AGAIN THAT 1790 Statute was REPEALED in 1795 and rewritten to remove the words “natural born.”. Cruz and people who make your argument repeatedly ignore and never seem to mention that fact.

I have run all of my opinions thru two constitutional attorneys who have argued and won cases before the Illinois Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court, who did not agree with me until they researched this matter. They now agree with me completely. They say that Cruz is even less of an NBC than Rubio is.


615 posted on 04/11/2016 1:02:47 PM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson