Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-22-2013, 01:08 AM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,386,781 times
Reputation: 390

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
In Hawaii it doesn't matter what British law says, what matters is what U.S. law says.
The U.S. Constitution is the Law of the Land.

Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.

Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.

"According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.

It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored."

The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed. | Natural Born Citizen

Precedent cannot rewrite original construction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2013, 01:12 AM
 
1,523 posts, read 1,439,445 times
Reputation: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post

The 2004 Bill (not amendment) did not pass because the law already allows for children born to Citizen parents to be natural born citizens. .
I posted the summary text of the bill word for word as it is listed. On the other hand, yes it allows children born to Citizen parents (plural) to be natural born Citizens. That leaves Cruz out because his father was a national of a foreign sovereignty. Therefore Cruz is just a Citizen by statute (not natural) and not eligible for Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5. The founders original intent was to not have future presidents born on foreign sovereign lands to foreign nationals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 01:25 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,275,413 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier View Post
I posted the summary text of the bill word for word as it is listed.
And the backpedaling starts. When caught, you just say "hey not my fault, that's what I saw".

Of course, due diligence on your part is not heard of. Why not just copy the entire text of the bill, and comprehend the less than 400 work text, and see that it doesn't support your claims.

No, that's too much work for a birther.

Quote:
On the other hand, yes it allows children born to Citizen parents (plural) to be natural born Citizens.
Did you miss the part where it says Citizen parent or Citizen parents?

Quote:
That leaves Cruz out because his father was a national of a foreign sovereignty.
No it doesn't. His mother is a US citizen. The Bill as proposed would have covered her, but the LAW already says that he is, since his mother is a US Citizen (as I stated, the Bill would have been redunant since US Code already says that children born to 1 US citizen parent, who had resided in the US for at least 1 year, their children US Citizens at birth).

Quote:
Therefore Cruz is just a Citizen by statute (not natural) and not eligible for Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
and there is no such thing as STautory citizenship. Citizenship is controlled by the US Constitution and US LAW (which are NOT statutes).

and why do you persist on using RACISTS reasoning as your basis to deny citizenship?

Quote:
The founders original intent was to not have future presidents born on foreign sovereign lands to
foreign nationals.
and

The founders intent was to block those who weren't born citizens from becoming President.

And there were over 50 founding fathers, who had 50 different points of view on citizenship. Luckily sound heads referred to established law to codify and refer to. Establish law that says being born on US soil no matter who your parents are, you are a citizen from birth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 01:28 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,275,413 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post

Your source is a blog, written by a birther, who has no legal training whatsoever.

Sorry, but that argument on who is a citizen and not a citizen was dealt with nearly 100 years ago. A little case called US v Wong Kim Ark.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 01:33 AM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,386,781 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
Your source is a blog, written by a birther, who has no legal training whatsoever.

Sorry, but that argument on who is a citizen and not a citizen was dealt with nearly 100 years ago. A little case called US v Wong Kim Ark.
The Lost Ark of Kim has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Natural Born Citizen.

Nothing whatever!

That is why Kim is lost from this issue.

Though, it is a smelly red herring, with obfuscatory jaws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 01:38 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,275,413 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
The Lost Ark of Kim has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Natural Born Citizen.
Yes it did. It had everything to do with Natural Born citizenship. Even the dissenters addressed the issue of Presidential eligibility in their opinion.

and yes, it does, since over 1000 court cases from CIVIL to STate Superior to the SCOTUS have used Wong Kim Ark in reference to citizenship and Natural born citizenship issues.

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/...-wong-kim-ark/

Quote:
That is why Kim is lost from this issue.
No it is not. The fact that the court agreed that he, if he chose to, could run for POTUS is why Kim is very much tied to this issue.

Quote:
Though, it is a smelly red herring, with obfuscatory jaws.
says the one that is trying to obfuscate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 02:34 AM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,386,781 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
Yes it did. It had everything to do with Natural Born citizenship. Even the dissenters addressed the issue of Presidential eligibility in their opinion.
The only "address" the court was permitted, was, is Kim a U.S. citizen? Dicta stinketh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
and yes, it does, since over 1000 court cases from CIVIL to STate Superior to the SCOTUS have used Wong Kim Ark in reference to citizenship and Natural born citizenship issues.
From a dicta premise, they were falsely premisized. Pyramiding of dicta doesn't "create" law.

In US v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court Set a Binding Precedent as to Who Is a Natural Born Citizen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
No it is not. The fact that the court agreed that he, if he chose to, could run for POTUS is why Kim is very much tied to this issue.
The court came to no such "agreement".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
says the one that is trying to obfuscate.
Your Wong Premise is slanted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 05:44 AM
 
1,523 posts, read 1,439,445 times
Reputation: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
The only "address" the court was permitted, was, is Kim a U.S. citizen? Dicta stinketh.



From a dicta premise, they were falsely premisized. Pyramiding of dicta doesn't "create" law.

In US v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court Set a Binding Precedent as to Who Is a Natural Born Citizen



The court came to no such "agreement".



Your Wong Premise is slanted.
Good post. These anti-American Obama lovers who want Article 2 Section 1 subverted are hell bent on obfuscating the true facts of what a true natural born Citizen is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 06:14 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,811,485 times
Reputation: 24863
You have no idea how much it pleases me that all you "birthers" are wasting your time and energy on this issue instead of trying to find an acceptable RWNJ presidential candidate for 2016. Keep it going. You really amuse me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 06:21 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,558,965 times
Reputation: 24780
Lightbulb Look...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
Sean Hannity Ted Cruz interview, Presidential hopefuls, Hannity questions Cruz Canadian birth, Carl Cameron Cruz not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen | Citizen WElls
(about 35 seconds in)

I just saw a clip of Slanthead and Ted Cruz on PoliticsNation. My God I am actually speechless. In the exchange, which is about questions as to if Cruz is a natural born citizens, Slanthead speaks dismissevely of "birther cries growing on the left" (and he does that gesture where the finger makes circles around the ears) as if only those on the left would do something so crazy. But that's not the crazy part, the truly amazingly hypocritical double standard part that makes your jaw drop and turns you speechless. Both Slanthead and Ted Cruz agree that Cruz was BORN IN CANADA!! That's right, I'll say it again, both Slanthead and Ted Cruz agree that Ted Cruz was BORN IN CANADA!!

Slanthead: Let me get this straight, you were born in Canada.
Cruz: Yes

And then Slanthead goes on to say "but your mother was a U.S. citizen" and then they both agree that that makes him a U.S. citizen. Yes, that's right, now they are both saying that because his mother was a U.S. citizen, not his parents, just his mother. Gee, doesn't that sound familiar? A politician who (it is claimed) was born outside the United States whose mother was a U.S. citizen

Now check out the way Slanthead says "this issue of the birth certificate" here and compare it with the way he says "birther cries growing on the left"
Sean Hannity - Birthers - Donald Trump | Mediaite

OMG NOW I'M EVEN MORE SPEECHLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the last link, which I'm listening to right now as I type this, and I had to rewind to see if I heard right, Slanthead proclaims that he carries around a copy of the Constitution and he says that the Constitution requires that you be born in the United States. Yes, he really did, check it out for yourself. He claims that the Constitution requires you be born in the United States, and in the first video and admits that Ted Cruz wasn't born in the United States BUT SOMEHOW HE'S STILL A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BECAUSE ONE PARENT, NOT BOTH, JUST ONE, WAS A U.S. CITIZEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To be honest I don't know why Seans idiocy and double standards always shock me so much, I guess by now I should be used to it.

Now Hannity isn't a birther. I guess there's a limit to even his craziness, but why is it that when the right claims Obama isn't a natural born citizen they're asking a very valid question and gosh of golly why doesn't
...anyone with subnormal intelligence knows that Hannity is a witless fool who will say whatever appeals to his audience of mouthbreathers. The little twerp has no credibility with anyone outside of the Fox family.

You should expect this kind of hyperpartisan hypocrisy from Fox because that's what they do. Incessantly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:15 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top