Posted on 04/12/2016 4:48:11 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas meets the criteria to be considered a “natural born citizen” and can run in New Jersey’s Republican presidential primary on June 7, an administrative law judge ruled Tuesday.
Judge Jeff Masin’s decision will now go to Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who also serves as New Jersey’s secretary of state, for consideration. She can choose to accept it in full or in part, or reject it.
Masin heard arguments Monday on two challenges to Cruz’s eligibility to run for president. In both cases, the challengers argued that, because Cruz was born in Canada, he is not a natural born citizen, one of three constitutional requirements for the presidency.
Cruz, 45, was born in Calgary, Alberta. His mother, a U.S. citizen, was born in Delaware. His father was born in Cuba. Cruz has said that a child of a U.S. citizen is automatically granted citizenship at birth and is therefore “natural born.”
(Excerpt) Read more at northjersey.com ...
Still doing that “argumentum ad populum” thing, eh?
Which was not repealed but replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795. Which itself was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1798. Which was replaced by the Naturalzation Act of 1803.
I look forward to our first Saudi prince President. But he’ll renounce his citizenship he surely never knew about until a year or two before running, and that will make it OK.
This country is a joke and stands for nothing at this point. Ted Cruz sides with leftist BLM rent-a-mobs and millions still turn out to vote for him. Whatever, we get the candidates we deserve.
You put water in sewage, you have sewage. You put sewage in water, you have sewage.
The entire legal community has become polluted with the ignorant sewage spilled into the system since William Rawle began his campaign of deliberate lying regarding the origin of US Citizenship.
Now it has just become an avalanche of sewage.
Removing the language about natural born citizen
***********************************
shall be considered as natural born Citizens
*******************************************
Shall be considered as means they are not
The facts of his case are clear and well known, and no "sealed records" would make any difference no matter what they might say.
If such exist, they are still irrelevant, but I don't think any such things exist.
Still doing that “argumentum ad nauseum” thing, I see.
Well I wasn’t going to do this, but I think it’s time that the people really know who they are voting for...
It has taken a while to put this together, and I don’t expect the Cruz bots to like it, and really don’t care if they do or not, there is information here that needs to been seen and it is documented, so nothing from the peanut gallery:
There has been a lot of wondering on Ted Cruz’s life, from his father to his mother...
I have put together some time line articles that I think will help piece this puzzle together to show that Ted Cruz is one big lie...yeah he was born in December, 1970 in Alberta, Canada...but from there and even before he was born, there are many lies being told, by him and his father....
Lie One:
Rafael Cruz’s standard bio usually includes a phrase such as:
“Rafael suffered under a cruel, oppressive dictator. He began fighting Batista’s regime as a teenager and was imprisoned and tortured – beaten nearly to death – simply to be free.”
Rafael Cruz, born in Matanzas, Cuba in 1939, grew up in a “middle class” family; his father was an RCA salesman, his mother a teacher. As Cruz tells it, he began fighting with Castro’s revolutionaries against Fulgencio Batista in 1953, at the age of fourteen. First a little Castro back-history:
•1948 Bogotá, Colombia: after the assassination of Jorge Eliecer Gaitán; Castro spends five years traveling, learning about revolution and raising funds
•1952 Fidel Castro runs for Congress; Fulgencio Batista takes over in bloodless coup; elections canceled.
•1953 Castro attacks the Moncada barracks, he and brother Raul are arrested and imprisoned.
•1955 Castro brothers released; head to Mexico, not returning until 1956, when Batista’s forces drive them into the Sierra Maestra.
•Castro wages guerilla warfare from that location until Batista is driven from power two years later.
Obviously, Castro wasn’t even around to talk about “hope and change” as Cruz has claimed but hey, if the voting base will fall for it… anyway… In Castro’s absence, many factions of the resistance such as the FEU (University Students’ Federation), and its’ militant arm the Directorio Revolucionario under Jose Eccheveria, along with the urban fighters of the “26th of July Movement” under Frank Pais (known as M-26-7 for the date that Castro had attacked the Moncada barracks), carried on independent of Castro.
Even so, Rafael Cruz would have us believe he existed as a high school student by day, and revolutionary “throwing Molotov cocktails and blowing up buildings” by night. One has to wonder, would that be before or after he did his homework, because by his own account he managed to maintain “straight A’s throughout high school”, while keeping his parents in the dark about his activities for four years.
In a fawning post in the National Review, Mario Loyola reports that by the age of 17, this straight A student/ revolutionary has supposedly become “…a leading FEU figure in Santiago de Cuba”. Quite miraculous, as Santiago de Cuba is over 400 miles from this straight A student’s home in Matanzas.
Of Cruz upon Castro’s return in ’56, Loyola writes:
“They knew that Castro intended to land in Cuba and hoped to organize an urban uprising along with it. But Castro and the anti-Batista forces failed to coordinate in any meaningful way, and when Castro’s boat landed near Manzanillo in Oriente province, the hoped-for urban uprising failed to materialize.”
I don’t know how Rafael missed the memo, but the urban uprising was planned for, and did take place in Santiago de Cuba to correspond with Castro’s arrival, on November 30, the day Castro told them he would arrive. The resistance was unaware that Castro had encountered trouble on his way to Cuba, so the plan went forward, carried out by M-26-7. Time Magazine reported on Monday, Dec. 10, 1956:
“Just before dawn one day last week, the revolt got under way—again in Santiago. Machine gunners, in olive-drab uniforms with black-and-red armbands marked “26 de Julio,” fired on police headquarters.
At the same time they tossed grenades and gasoline bombs on the building from a nearby rooftop and burned it down, while ammunition popped inside. For a time the attackers roamed the area freely, looting a hardware store for weapons.
At other towns—Holguin, Guantánamo, Cienfuegos, Santa Clara—other Castro-men rebelled.”
Somehow, this revolutionary “leader” missed the action, just as he seems to have missed the action in March of that year, when his fellow FEU revolutionaries lost their lives attempting to take over the Presidential Palace in Havana and kill Batista. That operation was carried out just 50 miles from his home.
Cruz tells how in 1957, while back in Matanzas, he gets caught by Batista’s forces; here’s where things get a little confusing for Rafael: sometimes he was captured once, sometimes twice; sometimes his father paid a bribe to get him out, other times they just let him go.
During his incarceration, he claims he was severely beaten by prison guards “every four hours, for several days’, describing the pain as almost unbearable to the point of being “unable to feel his hands and legs”, often claiming he was beaten “nearly to death”. Ultimately, “by the grace of God” he says, he was released.
Now consider, at the same time, Batista’s police and military are given carte blanche to deal with Castro’s followers as they wish:
Spartacus: “… Suspects, including children, were publicly executed and then left hanging in the streets for several days as a warning to others who were considering joining Castro.
History of Cuba: “… 4 youths are found dead in an empty building, including 14-year old William Soler. They had been arrested as suspects in revolutionary activities and tortured.”
Batista orders at least one of his generals to “kill ten rebels for every soldier killed”.
But they just let Rafael Cruz go… twice? Not only that, it seems they called Rafael’s Dad to come pick him up after they were through “torturing” him. Imagine that phone call:
“Hello, Mr.Cruz? Yeah look, we’ve got your son down here; he’s gotten himself into a little bit of trouble but I think he’s learned a valuable lesson. You can pick him up any time… by ambulance would probably be a good idea.”
So, Dad picks him up and takes him home; not to the hospital mind you, but home. Obviously a miraculous healer/ straight A student/ revolutionary. Here’s what supposedly happens next:
Well I got home. My father took me home. I was eighteen years old and… I had been home about an hour and a lady from the underground whom I didn’t know came and said “Look, you’re being followed. There are two people assigned to follow you around the clock in shifts of eight hours. She brought me to the window of the living room and she said “You see that guy in that corner, and that guy in the other corner, those are the two assigned to follow you now.”
Evidently, he’s being followed by the Keystone Cops, because these two mopes are standing on the street in front of his house in plain sight, while it seems no one is watching the back (They don’t seem to grasp the concept of working in shifts either). At the same time, this woman from the “underground” which, you know, means SECRET… well she’s just outed herself to Batista’s goons by coming to Cruz’s home. Anyway…Cruz continues:
So I said “I want to go to the mountains” and she said “I’m sorry, it’s impossible… [of course it is] … Batista had at that time a very substantial raid. Had the mountains surrounded…”
Yet, a New York Times reporter in Cuba at that time reported “a constant exodus from the city [Santiago de Cuba] of youths who try to join Fidel Castro, a young rebel leader in the nearby Sierra-Maestra.” But this “lady from the underground” tells Rafael:
“The revolution says that the best thing you can do is to leave the country. So that I would not jeopardize all the people who were involved”.
Is this guy serious? These people fighting for their country what – held an emergency meeting to discuss what 18-year-old Rafael Cruz should do… for the good of the entire urban operation? I guess we know where Junior acquired his propensity for overblown self-importance. The best term used for Rafael (and his son) thus far is Bette Noir’s description of them as “fabulists”.
In hundreds of articles and narratives regarding the revolution, including those of the FEU and the DR, as well as declassified State Department files, that identify the revolution’s key players by name, I’ve yet to find Rafael Cruz anywhere. Then again, I haven’t yet found the tributes to those who “heroically” bailed on their fellow freedom fighters. Cruz:
“So I figure, what’s the best way to get out of the country. I know, I’ll apply to a university in the United States and leave with a student visa”.
Now the “brave young revolutionary”, having decided the possible freedom of his country isn’t worth dying for, is getting out of Dodge. Imagine someone in our Revolutionary War saying, “Wow, things are really heating up; I think I’ll go study abroad.”
Is it likely that Rafael Cruz got caught up in the demonstrations against Batista as a teenager and threw some Molotov cocktails with his buddies? Sure it is. Is it plausible that someone who calls himself a “leading figure” in Cuba’s FEU would be caught once if not twice and let go, when his fellow revolutionaries were being murdered and left as warnings in the street? Hardly. Mr. Loyola makes a lame attempt to explain why Cruz was just let go:
“His quick release was due to the fact that Batista was on a political knife’s edge and simply couldn’t afford to detain lots of people for very long.”
Flowery prose, but ridiculous. Batista’s men were torturing and murdering with impunity; they were hanging children from lampposts for God’s sake. It is sweet though, how Conservatives try to help Rafael cover the gaping holes in his narrative. (More about that in part 3)
Rafael Cruz is careful never to mention any particular events he took part in, just those he couldn’t for one reason or another; if anything, he seems to have been an extremely inept revolutionary. It also seems the elder Cruz’s tales have managed to raise the ire of many Cuban exiles, as Cuba 54 reports:
“Cubans who fought in the Revolution were incensed at hearing Cruz’ claims that he escaped death several times and managed to get away ‘by the Grace of God.’ The[y] say that he ‘urinates on the graves of true youth heroes like William Soler, Jose Echeverria, and Frank Pais.’ The living Cuban heroes label Rafael Cruz a ‘bola de grasa’; a greaseball.”
And there you have it, from the mouths of his fellow countrymen. Maybe Ted shouldn’t count on that Cuban-American vote just yet. Now we head to America, where Rafael Cruz’s “inspiring” biography runs completely, irretrievably, off the rails.
—
For those who do not know, the uber right wing Ted Cruz of the Tea Party, had a father who was fighting for communist Fidel Castro, the butcher of Cuba, against the American backed strong man, Batista.
So you get this, no one was being allowed into America who was a communist in all of this, and yet pro comrade Rafael Cruz, just somehow got out of Cuba, with only 100 dollars in his underwear, and somehow enrolled immediately in college in Texas.
As a teenager Rafael Cruz fought with Fidel Castro’s forces to overthrow U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. He was later caught by Batista officials, jailed and beaten before being released. To escape the oppressive regime, Cruz said he applied to the University of Texas, and got a four-year student visa from the U.S. consulate. Armed with all his legal documents to enter the U.S., all he needed was approval to leave Cuba — from the Batista government.
After the successful bribe, Cruz arrived in the U.S., as his son Ted likes to brag, with only $100, with little knowledge of English and washing dishes for a living, seven days a week for a mere 50 cents an hour.
Things just do not jive with the Cruz history in how a communist was apparently from Cuba, getting a 4 year scholarship as a comrade in Texas, and the Americans just let him into America quicker than Obama in 1970.
The time line of Rafael Cruz sr is one of magic, in he was 14 years old in 1953 when he started the Revolution with communist Castro. Sr. missed all of his high school education, but did write a letter to Texas and as the Revolution was unfolding in 1957, Sr. shows up in Texas for college...........
Oh and he says he has a Social Security card too, which he could not have had, unless it had appeared magically as Obama’s has.
Ok now we pretty much have the Father lies put down, how you take them is up to you, but I would say, he’s good at not telling the truth....compared to History of Cuba and the United States....he just popped up over here like he belonged....well....
Now we go on to the Mother:
Lie 2:
http://codeforeblog.com/?p=2885
There are some questions with this certificate, as a retired Police Dectective looked into it...almost seems as the same problem Obama has had with all his documents, the ones he let out anyway...so as the story goes....
Rafael’s first marriage to Julia Ann Garza occurred on January 1, 1959, and it is not known if she was a citizen of the United States, but this may also be why he wasn’t deported after graduation. Either way he would have had to file for Lawful Permanent Resident status. The birth of Rafael and Julia’s first child was November 22, 1961, Miriam Ceferina Cruz. The birth of their second child, Roxanne Lourdes Cruz was November 18, 1962. Sometime in early 1967 after 8 years of marriage, Rafael moved to New Orleans without his family to begin work in an oil-related job, with the intention of having his wife and daughters join him once he settled into his new job. One of the very first people Rafael met at work was fellow mathematician and co-worker Eleanor Elizabeth (Darragh) Wilson
British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act - Part III - 10 National status of married women
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien.
What happened next is unclear, but it is believed that Eleanor became involved with an Englishman whom she left Alan for. Keep in mind that at this point all of her identification, visa and other documentation all stated that she was Eleanor Wilson. The name of the Brit she was involved with is unknown at this time, as is whether or not he knew she was already married, but it is suspected that she married the Brit in order to provide her with all of the benefits of British citizenship which was automatic upon marriage, and that she kept her name as it was on all of her ID, Eleanor Wilson. One thing that is certain is that she eventually had a child with the Brit in early 1966 who she named Michael Wilson. (Alan Wilson claims he did not know anything about what became of the child until the recent interview, or why the child had the same last name as him, but he was absolutely certain that the child could not have been his.) (Eleanor also used her last name of Wilson on Ted’s birth certificate even though she was supposedly married to Rafael) December 9, 1966 just before the age of 1 Michael Wilson died and was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery in Kensington, England. Michael’s birth and death certificates would most likely fill in the missing pieces as they would have the names of the mother and father, marital status and citizenship. That would provide the information needed for a records search for a British marriage license and citizenship change. A copy of Alan and Eleanor’s divorce decree would also clear up a lot of questions.
After the death of her son Michael, her relationship with the Brit fell apart and by early 1967 Eleanor decided that the best thing for her to do would be to return to her family in Houston Texas and leave the 8 years in London behind her. It is not known if she divorced the Brit or not. Soon after arriving back in Texas, Eleanor began looking for work in her field of mathematics and soon located a job in New Orleans with an oil-related company.
The newly hired Eleanor and Rafael started working together as mathematicians for the New Orleans oil company in 1967, and with both being from Texas, alone in an exciting city, it didn’t take long for them to become involved, even though they were both married to other people. Within months they were scheming to make their new found love permanent. A real life Desi and Lucy. The problem was that they were both still married to other people and neither was a US citizen. Eleanor was now British and there was a record of her US marriage to Alan but no record of a US divorce, and the only reason Rafael was still in the US was because he was married to a US citizen, if he divorced his wife Julia and she turned him in then he would be deported. It is highly questionable why he never filed to become a US citizen during these 8 years of marriage.
As mathematicians in their jobs they analyzed geographical seismic data from areas where various oil companies were searching for oil. One of the areas that the company was getting a lot of business from was the Calgary Canada fields and as the analysts assigned to the project, they found their answer. By moving to Canada there would be no record of any previous marriages or divorce, no need to worry about Rafael getting a divorce and being deported. The best part of this plan was that according to the Canadian Citizen Act of 1947, as a British subject Eleanor was entitled to Canadian Citizenship after living there one year. Then marrying Rafael in Canada would make him a Canadian citizen after one year too. It seemed like the perfect plan so within 6 months of starting their new jobs and meeting each other, they quit and headed to Calgary together, telling family and friends that ‘work’ was sending them there.
Among the changes introduced by the Canadian Citizen Act of 1947 were the following:
•All Canadian citizens would have automatic right of entry to Canada.
•As a rule, immigrants (including those from the Commonwealth) would not qualify for full citizenship until they had been resident in Canada for five years and had taken out citizenship papers. However, immigrants who were already British subjects would not lose their existing rights, including the right to vote after they had resided in Canada for only one year. Immigrants who had served in the Canadian armed forces during the First or the Second World War would qualify for naturalization after only one year.
•Married women would be given full authority over their nationality status.
•Citizenship would be lost under certain circumstances, such as the adoption of citizenship of another country. (Canada did NOT allow dual citizenship.)
•Provision would be made for instruction in the rights and responsibilities of citizenship and for appropriate citizenship ceremonies, including a revised oath of allegiance.
Once Rafael and Eleanor arrived in Canada they used their mathematics skills and previous experience to start a seismic mapping company called R.B. Cruz and Associates which serviced the oil industry in Alberta. Once Eleanor received her citizenship in 1969 after their first full year in Canada, they got married so that Rafael could also get his Canadian Citizenship. In 1970, as Rafael B. Cruz has so often claimed, he obtained his Canadian citizenship. Keep in mind that it was IMPOSSIBLE to get Canadian Citizenship without first living there for at least FIVE (5) years (Bullet 2 above). So how did Rafael get Canadian Citizenship in less than 3 years as he claims? There is only ONE WAY he could have achieved that, and that is by marrying a Canadian citizen, one Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, allowing him to become a citizen 1 year after they were married in 1969. Canadian voter rolls after that time period show that both Eleanor and Rafael were registered to vote, which would be impossible if they were not citizens. These are undeniable facts
By the time Rafael received his citizenship, their relationship was showing signs of strain and the business faltering. Rafael was making frequent trips back to the US to see his children and presumably his American wife Julia, telling them he was still ‘on assignment’ in Calgary. It is probable that Rafael fully intended to return to the USA once he had his Canadian citizenship, but by then Eleanor was already pregnant, and on December 22, 1970 Rafael and Eleanor Cruz gave birth to Rafael Edward Cruz in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. After Ted’s birth they both began drinking heavily as the fights and arguments escalated. By 1974 the business was in dire straits so Rafael sold the ailing R.B. Cruz and Associates to Dave Robson, who turned it into Veritas Seismic Ltd.. Once the business was sold, Rafael abandoned Eleanor and his 3 year old son Rafael Edward Cruz in Calgary with very little money or income and returned to his American wife Julia Ann (Garza) Cruz and their 2 daughters Miriam and Roxanne, in Texas.
As ‘Ted’ Cruz tells it, Rafael had a ‘come to Jesus’ moment when he became a member of a Dominionist Church after which he returned to Eleanor and Ted and renewed their relationship. The truth is closer to Eleanor packing up everything she had in Calgary and left the 8 years there behind her and once again returning to her family in Texas, where she proceeded to track Rafael down, not that she won him back 100% though. Rafael B. Cruz continued in BOTH marriages, raising all three of the children into adulthood, at least until 1997, when he filed for divorce from both women, one in the USA and the other in Canada, ending his bigamist lifestyle.
The following facts must be considered concerning Ted’s citizenship:
•At the time of Ted’s birth neither parent was a citizen of the United States. Both had become Canadian Citizens. Rafael had never been and Eleanor gave up her US citizenship in England.
•When applying to become a Canadian Citizen, applicants must take an ‘Oath Allegiance’ renouncing any previous citizenship.
•Canada allows American immigrants living in Canada ONE (1) year to file a Consular Record of Birth Abroad (CBRA) after which if the consulate has not received the CBRA, then Canada will permanently grant any child born on Canadian soil exclusive Canadian citizenship. That child will not have citizenship in any other country.
•If Ted is a US citizen then there would be a CBRA on record in both the USA and Canada. Producing that would end any question about his citizenship.
•The Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947 explicitly forbids dual citizenship under any circumstance. If you are a Canadian citizen by naturalization or birth, you could not be a citizen of any other country
•Rafael and Eleanor were both registered to vote in Canadian elections.
•If Rafael maintained his contact with USCIS, the birth of his son Ted would have generated an A-File entry.
•In order to enter the U.S., Ted would have had to have been documented as either a Canadian or United States citizen. If not then he would be considered an illegal alien. If Ted was claimed as Rafael’s son, an entry would have been entered into Rafael’s A-File.
•If Ted entered the USA legally as a Canadian citizen which he was, then an A-Number and an A-File would have been generated for him.
•If Eleanor had retained her U.S. citizenship, she would have had to fill out paperwork documenting her Canadian husband. This would have been entered into his A-File.
•Rafael B Cruz would have needed to re-apply and receive Lawful Permanent Resident Status in 1975 when he returned to the U.S. as a Canadian Citizen which would be in his A-File.
•Rafael B Cruz maintained his Canadian citizenship until 2005. As a foreign national he would have had to update his status annually with USCIS which should have generated A-File documentation.
•Rafael B Cruz became a naturalized United States citizen in 2005. According to the USCIS, he would have had to send copies of a number of documents requested under the Document Checklist for Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, as well as submitting a rather lengthy form which currently Totals 21 pages. He may also have filed a form G-28 Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative which would be a part of his A-File.
•The 2005 Application for Naturalization would require documents such as proof that all earlier marriages ended which would have required the submission of divorce decree(s), annulment(s), or death certificate(s), and all correspondence with the IRS regarding any failure to file any income tax return since becoming a Lawful Permanent Resident (which would presumably have also applied to the years he was in Canada).
•Section 349 of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act which stipulates that American citizens who swear allegiance to another country automatically lose their American citizenship. If Ted’s mother applied for British and/or Canadian citizenship then she would have had to swear allegiance to another country in doing so. She would have lost her US citizenship.
•Article II of the US constitution says about natural born Citizen “enjoin sole allegiance”, which means anyone born in the U.S. is “subject to the jurisdiction” and is a Citizen. Where “subject to the jurisdiction” means a full and complete jurisdiction meaning “NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ONE ELSE. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS” This is an exact quote, those are the words of the man who wrote most of the 14th Amendment - Lyman Trumbull. The United States never intended to allow dual citizenship either and it is clear that you must be born on US soil of TWO US citizens to be ‘natural born’ and cannot have ALLEGIANCE to Canada.
So by all of the information on Ted’s Mother, I would have to conclude that she is a Canadian Citizen and so was his Father until he became an CITIZEN of the United States in 2005.
You’re just funnin’ us, right?
So if I say “Donald Trump’s delegate lead means that he should be considered as the Republican nominee.” That means he is NOT the presumptive nominee?
Yikes!
Explain jus soli and jus sanguinis
And why it pertained to McCain but not to cruz
They didn't define the word "arms" either, because they figured people wouldn't be dumb enough to forget what it meant.
But I can offer some insight on this issue. We Americans are familiar with the word "citizen" only because we adopted it back in 1776.
It was an uncommon word prior to 1776, and it didn't mean the same thing as we take it to mean today. In English, the word "citizen" meant "denizen of a city". It meant someone who lived in a city.
There was only one place in the world where that word was used to refer to the inhabitants of a Nation, and it wasn't England.
The US usage of the word "citizen" comes from Switzerland. That is the only nation which used the word to mean inhabitants of a country, and they did so because they were created by the amalgamation of different states into the old Swiss Republic.
Their "Priest charter" of 1370, (considered the foundation of the old Swiss Republic") specifically mentions "citizens of cities, and citizens of "the country. "
We got the word from the Swiss, and therefore we got the meaning of the word from them as well. The British word for "inhabitant of a nation" was "subject."
We picked the word "citizen" to demonstrate that we were founded on different natural law principles than those which gave us the concept of "subject."
Need proof of a renunciation of U.S. Citizenship and the issuing of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to Mrs. Cruz.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Loss_of_Nationality
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/81609.pdf
Thank you so much for posting that.
Thus sayeth everyone who has court rulings go against them since Socrates.
Nope. Not even a constitutional amendment can redefine the concept of a "natural citizen" as informed by the natural law philosophy the founders relied upon to create the nation. It makes as much sense as redefining "pi."
No, "Natural citizen" is a concept independent of modification. It is in effect, a "natural law" constant, no different from the speed of light or the charge on an electron.
Only liberal sophists think they get away with tampering with natural law. They only end up making a mess of it. Again, I point out "gay" marriage.
What we have nowadays is a cohort of judges and lawyers who are too ignorant to understand that they don't understand something, and too stupid to realize that they should.
Our judicial system has become the perfect storm of kookery, but with all the trappings of "authority."
It is of necessity, a byproduct of rebutting your claims and arguments.
I did not read a bit of that “wall of text.” It is considered very bad form to launch a message too large for any reasonable person to read.
I don’t know - I’m a fairly reasonable person and I’ve read it twice.
Even in rebuttal, you have to invoke "ad populum?"
No, people are not correct because there are many of them. Being, "many" also does not necessarily make you wrong.
The quantities of people involved are irrelevant to the truth or fallacy of their arguments.
There is no “redefinition.” The term natural born citizen was left undefined.
“The Constitution does not say in words who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.” SCOTUS- Minor v Happersett, 1874
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.