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.
Ted Cruz will not be a future President of the USA because he is the closest thing to Joe McCarthy that the GOP has hacked up since well Tail Gunner Joe himself. My cats hairballs have more thought and knowledge than Ted Cruz!!!
I'm guessing you know absolutely nothing about the man.
I can't do it to your satisfaction. I'll admit that.
You can't do it at all because it simply doesn't exist. All we have to go on is John Jay's letter, prior SCOTUS references to who is a "natural born citizen," and statutes known to be in effect after the ratification of the 14th Amendment...
Two SCOTUS cases, 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.
Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that those born in the U.S. to transient aliens weren't even U.S. citizens at birth at all. In 1857, New York had a code that declared all those born in the state to be citizens except, "the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc." And after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the District of Columbia, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted similar citizenship law language as New York. The states could enact such laws because "transient aliens" were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Connecticut adopted a law that stated, "All persons born in this State...except aliens... are and shall be deemed to be citizens”
State laws such as those were not unConstitutional for the simple reason that they only deny citizenship to those born whom another sovereign claims as its own. To be clear, denial of citizenship to those born owing allegiance to another sovereign conforms with the Constitution. NONE of those state laws were ever stricken by SCOTUS for excluding from citizenship those who owed allegiance to another sovereign.
I detect a slight backslide. I am aware of it but I don't see your point. We are not arguing that natural born citizen isn't a requirement to be commander and chief. We are arguing about what that means which is also not defined in the letter.
Are you saying you recognize no meaning in Jay's letter suggesting the "natural born citizen" clause? Really?
Then why flat out reject the facts I'm posting? I've even posted links; you can research them yourself.
Contrary to your assertion of a supposed desire to learn, you've demonstrated no interest in learning. You want to cling to your preconceived beliefs no matter what. You're immune to comprehending and accepting known historical facts. You've demonstrated a propensity to eschew facts and cling to your misinformed beliefs.
If something is historic then you can provide a link that proves it. You've done no such thing. You pointed to a state department document that flat says there's no proof either way. I have no preconceived notions. You have provided no historical facts that back up that 8 USC § 1401 is not part of the Supreme Law of the Land that defines who is a natural born citizen. I can't back it up either. I can interpret it just like you can but that is not a demonstration of my interest in learning. Again, you are attacking me and not the notions (although mildly).
The cases you keep pasting prove that so and so is and so and so is but that's not the question. The question is, is so and so NOT. We have different opinions yet I didn't call you lazy or having a comprehension problem.
I'm glad I know people in real life that I can disagree with without them making accusations like you. You must have a very small circle of friends outside the internet.
If something is historic then you can provide a link that proves it.
I have:
Two SCOTUS cases, 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.
Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that those born in the U.S. to transient aliens weren't even U.S. citizens at birth at all. In 1857, New York had a code that declared all those born in the state to be citizens except, "the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc." And after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the District of Columbia, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted similar citizenship law language as New York. The states could enact such laws because "transient aliens" were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Connecticut adopted a law that stated, "All persons born in this State...except aliens... are and shall be deemed to be citizens”
State laws such as those were not unConstitutional for the simple reason that they only deny citizenship to those born whom another sovereign claims as its own. To be clear, denial of citizenship to those born owing allegiance to another sovereign conforms with the Constitution. NONE of those state laws were ever stricken by SCOTUS for excluding from citizenship those who owed allegiance to another sovereign.
You can look up the relevant state laws yourself. The research will do you good; might open your mind a tiny little bit.
I recognize you do not wish me to reply to this so I won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I have:
Two SCOTUS cases, 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.
Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that those born in the U.S. to transient aliens weren't even U.S. citizens at birth at all. In 1857, New York had a code that declared all those born in the state to be citizens except, "the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc." And after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the District of Columbia, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted similar citizenship law language as New York. The states could enact such laws because "transient aliens" were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Connecticut adopted a law that stated, "All persons born in this State...except aliens... are and shall be deemed to be citizens”
State laws such as those were not unConstitutional for the simple reason that they only deny citizenship to those born whom another sovereign claims as its own. To be clear, denial of citizenship to those born owing allegiance to another sovereign conforms with the Constitution. NONE of those state laws were ever stricken by SCOTUS for excluding from citizenship those who owed allegiance to another sovereign.
You can look up the relevant state laws yourself. The research will do you good; might open your mind a tiny little bit.
I've posted no boilerplate; only actual historic evidence.
U.S. Secretaries of State determining those born in the U.S. to transient alien fathers to NOT be U.S. citizens, even after 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. Digest of the International Law of the United States
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.
