Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are increasing the volume of your tantrums only because you can't do anything else. The more truth I reveal the louder and more brutal you will get.
What "truth" are you supposedly revealing?
I've asked you to post the federal law that defines "natural born citizen" and you still CAN'T do so.
OK, that's delivered calmly so I'll try one of my questions I saved up. Do you think the courts are the proper venue to deal with this after Obama was sworn in?
Possibly one of the venues but by no means are the courts the only venue. A LOT of people dropped the ball on Obama's Constitutional ineligibility issue. I'll graciously acknowledge that such was due to undereducated ignorance rather than actual malicious intent.
that is my point...some form would have to have been filed. Im not contesting his citizenship, I'm mentioned his naturalization...History Dude says he wasnt naturalized. Im wainting and reading through the repsonses to see what news HD has on Cruz's "naturalization"...process.
If you know Cruz' process to citizenship...the process, fill me in.
The US Constitution defines Natural born citizen. Its called the 14th Amendment.
Now show us the LAW that says natural born citizens are born ONLY to two citizen parents (because we know that you subscribe to the birther de vattel belief).
Even the U.S. State Dept in a 2012 publication states that any possibly statutorily derived NBC "status" does NOT necessarily imply Constitutional Presidential eligibility: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Would such a person born abroad be born a citizen? Yes.
Would that person be Constitutionally POTUS eligible? Not necessarily says the State Dept.
I don't have much trouble with that though I'd like to dig a bit because of the age of the report. Where I do have an issue is this statement:
In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
I kind of covered this earlier when I said what the difference between an opinion and a settled law. As long as there is a chance to appeal then it isn't settled. Since no one has appealed it successfully then the answer cannot be absolute. My position is that it can be addressed by statute (and has been) because the phrase is not defined in the Constitution.
Therefore, if it reached SCOTUS they would look at the first congress and common law at the time the Constitution was drafted and of course any debate or notes by the drafters (apparently none). They would then look at existing statutes and weigh it against the clause and the 14th Amendment. And yes, that is my opinion because I don't control what SCOTUS does.
Your view seems to be that the phrase is self evident and nothing can change that. That is where our differences are and neither one of us should accept it as absolute fact and neither of us are liars for what we believe.
But there's a part two and this is where I think the birthers keep screwing up. No one has been able to put a stop to a candidacy in court. If you can't and the guy gets sworn in then lawsuits are moot. You can say that's my opinion too but that does have a track record in the courts. SCOTUS won't even left a keystroke to address the merits of the cases. They don't feel that they are worthy of even a "why".
So, until Congress can be convinced otherwise, it's just a huge philosophical endeavor without and end game.
The US Constitution defines Natural born citizen. Its called the 14th Amendment.
Cite it, word for word. Where does it define "natural born citizen?"
Caveat:
We already know for a fact that even after the 14th Amendment was ratified, several states' codes denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to transient aliens was never stricken by SCOTUS.
And... you may not be aware of the discussion, but U.S. Secretaries of State have determined that children born in the U.S. to transient alien fathers were NOT even U.S. citizens, at all.
More info on citizenship after the ratification of the 14th Amendment...
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
...if it reached SCOTUS they would look at the first congress and common law at the time the Constitution was drafted and of course any debate or notes by the drafters (apparently none).
Are you unaware of John Jay's letter to George Washington suggesting that the "natural born citizen" requirement (and its intended purpose) be included in the Constitution's POTUS eligibility clause?
IC continues to fail at the basic reading comprehension. Seeing as one doesn't need to say "Natural born citizen is >>>> " because the entire US Constituion doesn't need to say it. It was understood at the time what Natural Born meant, seeing as they adopted much of the policies from good ol' England:
I'll leave it up to the US Supreme Court to explain:
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
I've already posted two SCOTUS cases. Please review:
Two, to start:
Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States to a father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage
Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.
I'm asking for your definition. The cases you site stand for circumstances in those cases. They do not negate other circumstances. In other words, in order to prove someone is not a natural born citizen in the context of Cruz' birth you'd need a similar ruling with similar circumstances. Or at least someone being declared not natural born outside the country when they claim 8 USC § 1401. But it's already been noted by the state department that hasn't been done. Because it hasn't been done, the question is unanswered by the courts.
I'm not going to argue about the states. I don't agree but that's a huge turn to make.
In contrast, you get all butt-hurt when I call you out on your unsubstantiated "opinion."
LOL. Nothing on this forum has any emotional effect on me at all. I enjoy the research because I'm here to learn. I enjoy the debate because it's good practice. The moment anything makes me mad, sad, angry, whatever, I'm out.
That's why if you hop over the the N.C. forum you won't see me on any threads that call the GOP idiots or other name calling. I don't find name calling enjoyable and not everything has to be dictated by a party.
This issue I think is somewhat unique because those that really, really believe in what I think they are saying aren't partisan. They will go after Cruz as well as Obama.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
