Sunday, February 28, 2016

Campaign Rally in Madison, AL Feb 28, 2016

3 comments:


  1. Part I

    Regardless of whether or not Cruz is a "born Citizen", Cruz clearly does NOT appear to be a "natural born Citizen".

    One question seems critical to not lose focus on: What's the difference between a "born Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen"?

    In the Naturalization Act of 1790 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ) it apparently states that ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that mayibe born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, …’ ( http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf ). Some attempt to argue that this means that it is not necessary to be born in the United States to be a natural born Citizen. However, even in the Naturalization Act of 1790 it apparently states “children of citizens” – citizens in the plural (i.e. both parents). Moreover, the expression “shall be considered as” implies a leniency (and thus actually supports that “natural born Citizen” as used in the U.S. Constitution is more stringent (i.e. it is also necessary to be born in the United States)). In any event, in 1795, the Congress apparently repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790 (while George Washington was still the president) as elucidated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795 ( http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf ). Furthermore, prior to the 14th Amendment, it seems clear that the prevailing understanding of born Citizenship (let alone natural born Citizenship) required more than just being born in the United States or why else would the (Citizenship clause of the) 14th Amendment have been necessary?

    Natural law seems to imply obviousness and thus a “natural born Citizen” seems to mean a born Citizen so obvious as not to require a statute. Apparently, the requirement for the president to be a “natural born Citizen” is a safeguard to maximize allegiance for this unique position (which includes the military role of Commander in Chief). There also seems to be a “widespread and long-standing” tradition (prior to Barack Hussein Obama II) of adherence to the requirement of a president being born in the United States to both parents who are U.S. citizens (unless someone managed to deceive us regarding his background) as apparently documented in http://www.votefortheconstitution.com/natural-born-citizen1.html .

    Indeed, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), "MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting" stated:
    “Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

    "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."”

    ReplyDelete

  2. Part II

    Furthermore, even the majority opinion ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ) did not seem to decide on “natural born citizenship” – rather only on “born Citizenship”. Furthermore, in Wong Kim Ark the case involved someone BORN IN THE UNITED STATES to parents legally allowed to be in the United States. The majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), stated “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    Indeed, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874), it states “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/88/162.html , https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html )

    BOTTOM LINE: IS THERE ANY LEGITIMATE SOURCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT SOMEONE BORN BOTH OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND WHEN HIS FATHER WAS NOT A CITIZEN WOULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN??? As for 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth‏ (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 ), I didn’t see the expression “natural born Citizen” used in 8 U.S. Code § 1401, and thus 8 U.S. Code § 1401 clearly does NOT appear to even allege any relevance to being NATURAL.

    Thus, while Cruz may conceivably be a “born Citizen” it APPEARS INCONCEIVABLE THAT HE COULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!! BY THE WAY, IS IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE COULD NOT ONLY BE A BORN CITIZEN OF THREE COUNTRIES (I.E. CANADA, CUBA, AND THE UNITED STATES) BUT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THREE COUNTRIES (I.E. CANADA, CUBA, AND THE UNITED STATES)??? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!

    THUS, SUPPORTING ELECTING SOMEONE TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF WHO IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN SEEMS TO BE FACILITATING VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!!

    FURTHERMORE, HOW COULD ONE EXPECT SOMEONE LIKE SENATOR CRUZ TO NOMINATE TO THE SCOTUS JUDGES, LIKE SCALIA, WHO SINCERELY BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN SUCH A JUDGE WOULD HOLD THAT CRUZ IS INELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS?

    ReplyDelete
  3. :-) Senator Jeff Sessions endorsed Trump!!! :-) ( https://youtu.be/Is0sNyjPeX8 - “• Senator Jeff Sessions Endorses Donald Trump • Alabama • 2/28/16 •” )

    Donald Trump JUNIOR - approximately 4:54 of https://youtu.be/h0YVc_IEIPE (- "GOP frontrunner's son reacts to Texas debate, talks his father's policies on 'Justice with Judge Jeanine'" ("Published on Feb 28, 2016")).

    ReplyDelete