Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 120 of 120

Thread: Natural Born Citizen Defined

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    People with totally opposite interpretations both think they know the true meaning.
    Then how is any communication possible at all? Why are you even responding to me? Do you wonder if you might be interpreting my words to mean the exact opposite of what I intended, or that I might be interpreting your words to mean the exact opposite of what you intended?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    "native-born" has been the synonym used in a subsequent Supreme Court case even.
    It is what birthers were talking about - Arthur, Romney, Goldwater, McCain, Obama, born in the US ?

    But no one can change the meaning to anything else from what was voted on in the constitutional convention and signed off for ratification.
    Exactly. And nowhere in the Constitution that was ratified does it require that one must be born in the USA to be a natural born citizen.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Exactly. And nowhere in the Constitution that was ratified does it require that one must be born in the USA to be a natural born citizen.
    other than the vote "that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen of the nation" as transcribed by Madison
    when they used the precise verbatim language of John Jay's letter to a Virginia delegate friend and General.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    other than the vote "that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen of the nation" as transcribed by Madison
    when they used the precise verbatim language of John Jay's letter to a Virginia delegate friend and General.
    I see the phrase "in the Constitution" is a difficult one for you. This seems to be a running theme.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I see the phrase "in the Constitution" is a difficult one for you. This seems to be a running theme.
    No not at all. The volumes and volumes of court cases about meaning of all sorts of phrase "in the Constitution"
    are a running theme for challengers, but you can't change that definition now.

    Maybe TrusTed will try.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    No not at all. The volumes and volumes of court cases about meaning of all sorts of phrase "in the Constitution"
    are a running theme for challengers, but you can't change that definition now.
    I haven't referred to a single court case. What are you talking about?



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I see the phrase "in the Constitution" is a difficult one for you. This seems to be a running theme.
    No not at all. The volumes and volumes of court cases about meaning of all sorts of phrase "in the Constitution"
    are a running theme for challengers, but you can't change that definition now.

    Maybe TrusTed will try.

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I haven't referred to a single court case. What are you talking about?
    "in the Constitution" challenges, whatever the Article in dispute and by whomever, whenever - which happen every day.
    Challengers have a difficulty to convince the courts of new or expanded meaning - usually fail, sometimes a difficult interpretation
    and you get a dissent opinion from a judge at best, and then the appeals

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    Challengers have a difficulty to convince the courts of new or expanded meaning - usually fail, sometimes a difficult interpretation
    The opposite is true. Courts routinely give rulings that assert the Constitution to say things other than what it actually says. The whole purpose of having classes in constitutional law is to teach people how to do that.

    The fact that you're working so hard to avoid any interaction with the actual text of the Constitution is itself strong evidence against your position.

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    The opposite is true. Courts routinely give rulings that assert the Constitution to say things other than what it actually says. The whole purpose of having classes in constitutional law is to teach people how to do that.

    The fact that you're working so hard to avoid any interaction with the actual text of the Constitution is itself strong evidence against your position.
    Well how many cases affirm some new meaning and how many don't in the end - of the hundreds of thousands of cases -
    I don't think has been tabulated.
    fwiw, most challenges to the constitution never make it past District Court,
    and get designated "Do Not Publish" unless some interesting legal point.

    Not working hard at all on anything here - typing on a keyboard during breakfast is easy really.
    Surely no avoidance of the letter of the law or it's intent - no legal controversy about Cruz's birthplace.
    "Natural-born citizen" is what was proposed as the eligibility criteria, brought before vote, and then written into the draft that was approved. Then ratified by the states.

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    Well how many cases affirm some new meaning and how many don't in the end - of the hundreds of thousands of cases -
    I don't think has been tabulated.
    fwiw, most challenges to the constitution never make it past District Court,
    and get designated "Do Not Publish" unless some interesting legal point.

    Not working hard at all on anything here - typing on a keyboard during breakfast is easy really.
    Surely no avoidance of the letter of the law or it's intent - there is no legal controversy about Cruz's birthplace.
    "natural-born citizen" is what was proposed as the eligibility criteria, brought before vote, and then written into the draft.
    I don't share your living document view of the Constitution. But even if I did, do you really think that a court would rule Cruz ineligible to be POTUS? That's the implication of your line of argument. And if, on the other hand, a court ruled that he was eligible, you would be forced to concede by your own line of reasoning that the court was automatically right, and that the Constitution actually did say whatever that court claimed it said.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I don't share your living document view of the Constitution. . . .
    I never have had that living document view of the Constitution at all . . . but cognizant that McCulloch v. Maryland
    often seems to get the blame for starting that $#@!.
    President TrusTed would be trying something new not available to the previous 44 US Presidents - but he'll fail before it gets that far.

    The courts could only decide a case that gets brought before it -
    some party that has damages from the fraudulent misrepresentation by TrusTed that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

  14. #102
    I am a natural born citizen. I was born on a military base inside the date of the law, to parents who were natural born citizens. McCain, interestingly enough, was born before the specific law defining the citizenship of children born on military bases.

    I don't know what you say to kids whose mothers were married to men posted overseas and who went overseas to be with their husbands. I left the country of my birth before I was three months old and have never been back. I had no trouble getting a social security number or registering to vote. My citizenship has never been in doubt or up for discussion.
    "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    I never have had that living document view of the Constitution at all
    A living document view is what you're defending here, whether you admit it or not.

    Your aversion to the text of the Constitution is a symptom of it.
    Last edited by erowe1; 01-11-2016 at 11:55 AM.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    A living document view is what you're defending here, where you admit it or not.

    Your aversion to the text of the Constitution is a symptom of it.
    I never have had any aversion to the text of the Constitution one bit.
    The text of the President Eligibility Clause as written was drafted from the vote for no Foreigners.


    "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government,
    and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen."



    .
    Last edited by Jan2017; 01-09-2016 at 03:29 PM.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    How does John Jay define "natural born"? Returning to the Harvard Law Review: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/

    The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:

    [W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.12
    12. Letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 25, 1787), in 3 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).
    As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”

    The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 01-09-2016 at 03:37 PM.
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    How does John Jay define "natural born"? . . .
    I do think that from the full sentence mentioning "natural born Citizen" -
    "to declare expressly" (i.e. put it into the new document up for vote) something that would put into effect
    "a strong check to the Admission of Foreigners into the administration of our new government" -

    is an excellent full indication of the meaning, and might have been read out in full since someone also suggested that they consider Senators too.

  20. #107
    So John Jay's children would be considered "foreigners" and ineligible to become president- even if they are kids of one of the more famous of the Founding Fathers.
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  21. #108
    I am thinking this entire concern over "natural born" is a waste of time - a wholesale misdirection of energy. What is to say that a tyrant cannot be "natural born"? What is to say a great leader cannot come from abroad, assuming such a thing even exists?

    What is important is compliance of so-called "leaders" to the limits of their delegated powers, which they exercise in trust for "the people". To violate that trust is, IMO, a capital offense. Exercise enforcement of the limits and timbre of political power by hanging all transgressors by their necks and the issue of "natural born" becomes immaterial. Was Slick Willy not natural born? Bush? Supposedly Bammy? Which of those would any of us want for even another day?

    I swear, the proclivity of people to miss the larger, deeper, and far more salient point in favor of noises never ceases to amaze me. I have come to suspect that this behavior is willful and not the product of inability because I have noted the strong addiction of the vast majority to low-rent, penny ante drama. It is like heroin addiction on near-fatal doses of Johnny Nucleo steroids. I also believe that the demonstration of this can be seen in people's addiction to television, which is almost 100% dog-pile drama storytelling.

    The one limitation I would make is that no matter where you were born, you must be a citizen and citizenship cannot be acquired one day less than 15 years after arrival. That gives one time aplenty to become "American". At that point, if you have not completely assimilated, people will know it and you would have no chance at high office. What counts here is that you are a damned American and not an -American. When you come here, you leave the world whence you came at the door to rot. That, or turn the hell around and GTFO because you are not welcome. This MUST be or else you end up like the $#@! holes known as Sweden, Germany, UK, France, and so forth.

    For decades I have listened to $#@!s piled upon $#@!s who bleat the clapped out saw that "Americans have no culture". BULL$#@!. American culture, REAL American culture, is as fine as any gets. Some bitterly and whingingly repine that Americans have no "sophistication" in their "so-called culture". That is a lie. What Americans used to lack was the dog-poo pretense of the jackass European. Ours was a simple and direct culture based on everything good in the Christian ethic largely devoid of the poisons of the Roman church. Yes, we had our terrible faults, treated the Indians with terrible injustice, and so on, but that was almost entirely GOVERNMENT-sourced evil. Funny, that... is it not?

    It is the average European who is full of baloney with his false "sophistication" that was built on two millennia worth of blood-soaked tyranny, a reality that continues to this very day. It is the European whose mind is so hopelessly poisoned with the false promises and other lies of Empire that he has regressed centuries into the darkness of totalitarian collectivism, thinking himself so fortunate and his masters so clever that he is able to get all manner of stuff for "free". Idiot jackass! But I once again digress, as is my poor habit.

    Let anyone from anywhere be president so long as they have become a citizen and know that any misstep against the public trust will earn them the noose, their carcass to be tossed into the wild to poison the coyotes. Couple that with the clearly defined principles of what it means to be American - to be a FREE MAN - and put in such a form that is taught to every child from kindergarten through post-graduate school. Make it the central pillar of existence as an American such that no man will have the excuse of ignorance, and enforce it against "leaders" with a singularly swift and unequivocal viciousness and 99.9% of our problems would vanish almost in an instant.

    Going on about this natural born thing and what the Framers meant is a fool's errand.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    . . . Going on about this natural born thing and what the Framers meant is a fool's errand.
    I'd blame it on McCain -
    he was using the intent of the Constitution to claim eligibility since 2000.
    He was questioned about this running against George W in 2000 in Iowa,
    and it probable came up when he threatened to be considered to run as Kerry's VP in 2004.

    By the intent to bar Foreigners as being ineligible forever, from day one - McCain would still claim eligibility though.
    As much as he is hated, he was not a Foreigner - maybe committed treason by his 32 tapes made for the Viet Cong,
    "but you do what you have to do to stay alive, nobody would fault that . . . but there is a limit"

    McCain had the problem that he was not eligible by the letter of the law being born outside the USA even if he was not a foreigner,
    some voters nullified him.

    Obama had met the "letter of the law" by being born in Honolulu a couple years after Hawai'i became a state,
    from both Honolulu Advertiser birth record and eventually a birth certificate, and then a certification by the Governor of the State.
    If he was born in Kenya there was no preponderance of evidence to overturn a Governor certification.
    Obama would probably - ok certainly - been a Foreigner by the intent of the framers, imho.

    Now, TrusTed Cruz wants the voters - and maybe eventually the courts - to ignore both the "letter of the law" and the "intent of the law"
    regarding Presidential eligibility - he was born outside the USA and had Foreign citizenship even if dual citizenship by his mommy.

    Heck of a mountain Cruz wants to climb, eh . . . ?


  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So John Jay's children would be considered "foreigners" and ineligible to become president- even if they are kids of one of the more famous of the Founding Fathers.
    why does it matter who their father was, if they dont fit the definition? (were his kids not born until after the Constitution? (I dont know his family history)

    its about the citizenship status required to be president (different from the status required to be a citizen), these limitations aren't unique to being president. A 19 year old cannot run for Senate, but he can be a citizen of the US at that time. Cruz and Rubio arent natural born citizens, period.

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    why does it matter who their father was, if they dont fit the definition?
    They do fit the definition precisely because of who their father was.

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    Cruz and Rubio arent natural born citizens, period.
    When did they become citizens then?

  25. #112
    It doesn't matter. You are all wasting your breath on this subject. The goons don't care about "laws" and don't follow "laws". This is all you need to know...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    They do fit the definition precisely because of who their father was.
    no. Not because of who their father "was". It was about the citizenship of the father. Not "who" he was.



    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    When did they become citizens then?
    a natural born citizen is different than a citizen. You should know that if you're even posting in this subject.

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    no. Not because of who their father "was". It was about the citizenship of the father. Not "who" he was.




    a natural born citizen is different than a citizen. You should know that if you're even posting in this subject.
    There are two kinds of citizens. Those who attain citizenship at birth (natural born) and those who have to go through a process to attain it (naturalized citizens).
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    There are two kinds of citizens. Those who attain citizenship at birth (natural born) and those who have to go through a process to attain it (naturalized citizens).
    Where is this "process"? Congress can determine citizenship but no where it says there is a process required. I also don't see where the limit of 2 forms of citizenship is listed.

  30. #116
    What other types are there? The Constitution lists two and gives Congress the power to set the process of Naturalization- naturalization requiring a process to those not born citizens while "natural born" being granted at birth.
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  31. #117
    Cruz is not a natural born American and is not eligible for the Presidency.
    He was a Canadian citizen until recently. He was born in Canada to a
    Cuban father and American mother but was a Canadian citizen at birth.

    Cruz cannot be President. Not natural-born.
    NaturalIZED is not natural born.

    END OF STORY.

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What other types are there? The Constitution lists two and gives Congress the power to set the process of Naturalization- naturalization requiring a process to those not born citizens while "natural born" being granted at birth.
    It says a uniform rule, not a process. If congress were to say people born within the USA boarders, not subject to the USA jurisdiction, with non-American parents are citizens.....that would be naturalization.

    If if a child is born in the USA, subject to its jurisdiction, to American parents - that's natural born.

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    Cruz is not a natural born American.
    100% correct. He's not eligible for president but he can stay in the senate.
    He won't have my vote

  34. #120


    Publius Huldah - Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...zen-explained/



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Natural Born Citizen
    By LibertyEagle in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-07-2016, 12:43 PM
  2. Coulter: Cruz is Not a Natural Born Citizen
    By notsure in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 01-10-2016, 11:10 PM
  3. Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?
    By Gin in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-06-2009, 02:53 PM
  4. McCain not a natural-born citizen?
    By Wendi in forum Other Presidential Candidates
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-09-2008, 08:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •