I don't like any of the remaining candidates. Cruz and Trump being the worst options.Originally Posted by sparebulb
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 02-04-2016 at 08:26 PM.
xxxxx
Last edited by Voluntarist; 07-22-2018 at 11:57 AM.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.
Honestly the way you're defending the $#@! out of him, sure points to the fact that you are stumping for him.
Supporting facts is not necessarily supporting the individual. Check my post history on Cruz.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 02-04-2016 at 09:00 PM.
Fact is Cruz's mom nor his dad filed form FS-240 with the US Consulate letting them know that he was born and they want him to have Am. Citizenship. That is fact.
Yea, seriously, I was annoyed at the attacks on Obama's citizenship because it seemed to me it wouldn't matter if he were born overseas.
The case cited by notsure is interesting, but I still suspect a 9-0 ruling in favor of Cruz would be likely.
Odumbo produced an American Birth Certificate, there is a difference here.
You're on the right track, but CRBA forms FS-240 weren't issued until 2011. Prior to that other forms of certificates of birth abroad were issued, such as form DS-1350.
R∃VO˩UTION
Just because you have low or no standards doesn't mean the whole country should suffer for it.
I guess if you are ignorant, be proud of it.
And just for clarification, questions were raised about Obama's eligibility, not his citizenship you $#@!ing dumbass.
Thank for the correction.
But we have legal authority prior to the ratification of the Constitution in which citizens of the U.K. born overseas were counted as natural born, right? So it seems the Supreme Court isn't ignoring the history of the law if it rules that citizen-at-birth and naturally born can be considered the same for purposes of presidential eligibility.
I am not saying the other side has no arguments, but if there are arguments on both sides and the Supreme Court seems pretty clear to take one of them, why make this such a central issue? I am not saying it isn't worth discussing. . .
What comes into play here is whether or not Cruz's parents filed form DS-1350, if that certificate existed Cruz would be able to prove once and for all he is NBC. Hell that should actually be public record, yet NO ONE can locate that it was ever filled out. Rafael is naturalized, he is not natural born.
Continue to fellate.
FS 240 was started in 2011. Before that it was form DS 1350 (1990- 2011) and before that form FS 545- which was the one when Cruz was born. He would not have an FS 240 though a foreign birth document can be requested at any point in one's life- it does not need to have been issued at birth- as long as you have the appropriate documentation.
http://www.us-passport-service-guide...tizenship.html
How Do Adults Obtain An Acceptable Foreign Birth Document?
You can only obtain one of these three acceptable foreign birth documents outside the United States, and they can only be prepared through a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. The consular officer will review and approve or deny your application; approved applications are forwarded on to the Department of State in the United States, who then issues a Form FS-240 (CRBA) in your name. (The other two foreign birth documents are no longer available.). A U.S. passport is also evidence of U.S. citizenship and will present a much easier path when situations arise that require proof of citizenship.http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86801.pdfThe Form FS-240 is not a birth certificate, such as is issued by a government authorized
bureau or office of vital statistics, because consular officers are not
authorized to assume a foreign local or state vital statistics function.
Not having a 545 or 240 does not necessarily mean you did not receive citizenship by birth.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 02-04-2016 at 09:37 PM.
So googling around I found an old threat here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eligible/page3
Apparently Clarence Thomas has (without disputing its legal correctness) referenced Congress finding that children born abroad to U.S. parents are natural born--so that seems to indicate which way the Court would go, if its most originalist-leaning member says that. That doesn't prove he is right, of course.
Last edited by DuxTexanii; 02-04-2016 at 09:24 PM.
Using Canadian entitlements as (at best) a dual citizen from 1970 - 1974, and not being claimed by the US resident mommy living abroad on her US tax return as a US citizen dependent, does mean the USA would need something after all those Canadian benefits derived as a Canadian native born citizen.
Wonder what the Rafael E. Jr. Social Security Number Application (SS-4) looks like . . .
. . . time for a Freedom of Information Request Act appeal for the microfiche in the basement of the Baltimore SSA annex.
Or were they destroyed ?
I am kinda investigating if there have been dual citizens allowed to enter the United States Senate - if they need a formal request or something for that security clearance. Cruz revoked his Canadian citizenship just over a year ago.
The Committee of Spies has already (posthumously) convicted him as a Foreigner..
Last edited by Jan2017; 02-05-2016 at 09:14 AM.
Congress does not define the terms of the US Constitution - they have no authority to create new meaning from the original intent as voted into draft, then signed and sent for state legislature ratification.
It is already clearly defined by the language that was suggested by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to a delegate -
one Mr. George Washington (he may have presided at the convention technically, though was extremely low-key) -
and voted on for inclusion to the commander of the army eligibility - but then voted down for eligibility for the legislative branch, specifically the Senate.
And was their claim denied? Or did the US government acknowledge that he was, from the time of his birth, a US citizen?
But if it doesn't exist, then it's up to anybody suing him as ineligible to be President to prove that he isn't a natural born citizen.
How would anyone manage that?
Goldman Sachs will determine this and let the US SC know how to rule.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
James Madison
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
Μολὼν λάβε
Dum Spiro, Pugno
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
Definition of the language of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to future POTUS #1 is very clear - Cruz is not native born to the United States,
and his total reliance on a double US citizenship of his mommy is getting dicey. Dual citizenship is never 100 % rights of both nations.
All Supreme Courts since 1789 would all rule on a case using the definition of what was voted on by 55 delegates in the summer of 1787.
They may listen to creative definitions in deciding a case, but they won't buy into them as easily as you hypothesize.
No, completely wrong -
the 1787 delegate born in Scotland of the Pennsylvania delegation was not a "natural born Citizen" - he was inelligible for POTUS doubtless.
Further, historians refer to Mr. James Wilson as a persuasive reason that the convention dropped the "No Foreigners in the Senate" resolution
from the draft of the Constitution describing eligibility for serving in the administration of the new national government.
Wilson was a legal expert - very active in the convention - had served on the Committee of Spies years earlier as well,
and served on John Jay's First Supreme Court as an Associate Justice.
...lol at the teabag republican glenn beck peckerheads for cruz....frequently working their foaming hot-dog holes about their love for and knowledge of the constitution!!!...these f@cking republican idiots call everyone else 'low information' when they can't even read/comprehend the clear constitutional language and the obvious reasons for denying foreign born citizens the presidency...
...maybe they're just setting us up for a future of presidents born in tel aviv...
....teabaggers and other assorted republicrats are some awful goddamned fools...
Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 02-05-2016 at 03:14 PM.
I said we had legal authority, I didn't say that all the legal authority said that people born outside the country were natural born citizens. Further, Wilson would have been eligible, contrary to your statement, because he was a citizen at the time the Constitution was ratified, right?
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Anyway, here's the legal authority showing cases in which a person born outside the U.K. was considered a natural born citizen (from the article cited int he OP):
"In 1352, to encourage foreign commerce, Parliament provided that all children born abroad would be natural-born subjects “provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king”6—hence both parents had to be English subjects. In 1708 and 1731, the rules were liberalized “so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception.”"
The legal authority seems to be mixed, but it seems pretty clear there is sufficient authority for the current Supreme Court to hold he is a natural born citizen.
Hey, watch how broadly you are painting with that brush. Don't forget that a significant segment of the Tea Party supported Rand. By the way, I was raised by a Bircher and I considered myself part of the tea party. In addition to having supported Ron Paul for decades. And I'm pretty damned sure I was taught when I was young that someone who had been a citizen of another country could not be President of the U.S.. And the reasons for this are glaringly obvious.
...lol at the teabag republican glenn beck peckerheads for cruz....frequently working their foaming hot-dog holes about their love for and knowledge of the constitution!!!
...maybe they're just setting us up for a future of presidents born in tel aviv...
....teabaggers and other assorted republicrats are some awful goddamned fools...
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
It is a 1787 fact that a Scotland-born Wilson was never eligible to command the american Army,
per the suggestion of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs as read to the delegates to vote on.
John Jay had been stuck in New York, returned from France where he was with Benjamin Franklin who was in Philadelphia.
In July, 1787, New York had a couple delegates already leave, they could have informed the Secretary of Foreign Affairs that
the Articles of Confederation was going to be replaced by a new federal constitution the states would have to ratify.
Most likely it could have been Hamilton - who was going back and forth on horseback(?) that he could be called a commuter to the convention -
back to New York City to inform Jay they were going to soon start discussing the new executive - commander of the Army.
It is believed that the promise of the start of those deliberations are what prompted Jay as the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to pen his suggestion to Washington.
The letter was received in late July by Washington in Philly, about 6 days after the first start of discussing the role of the new Commander-in-Chief.
Jay didn't know much, or anything at all, about the new executive post, but his suggestion was brought up a couple weeks later.
And as presented to the convention, he had wrote that he thought it best to restrict Foreigners from the administration of the national Government.
Some may have interpreted that to go as far as the legislative branch too - so it was discussed for Senate eligibility.
But Wilson was an exemplary model of a foreign-born guy that could be ok, he had served on the Committee of Spies.
The bar for the commander of the american Army would be set too high for even him.
Last edited by Jan2017; 02-05-2016 at 07:26 PM.
I am not clear how that means James Wilson couldn't have legally been President, he had been a citizen of Pennsylvania for over 14 years prior to the ratification of the Constitution, correct?
xxxxx
Last edited by Voluntarist; 07-22-2018 at 11:58 AM.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.
I was also interested in a discussion of the history--but yes, I was leading with what the current (then-current. . . given Scalia's unfortunate-for-us having left us) Supreme Court's likely ruling.
For the curious, I did in fact vote for Rand (along with about 0.18 percent of GOP voters in my county). Cruz's treatment of Hagel and his walking out of the Middle-Eastern Christian event, combined with Trump's less-interventionist sounding foreign policy and my uncertainty about how a general election would play out/who is most electable were reasons I didn't vote for him. That said, I do think Cruz would be the best President of the remaining four people running.
Last edited by DuxTexanii; 03-06-2016 at 02:30 PM.
Cruz' press secretrary has said the mom or him filed the CRBA . . . I figured it was a lie.
Cruz apparently applied for a US passport in 1986-ish for a high school trip to England,
which nowadays could be used in lieu of the CRBA officially.
Title of this thread is ridiculous . . .
too much Supreme Court and District Court precedent that has defined natural born US citizen in too many cases.
The 1787 convention history and James Madison Papers of 1789 support the definition used specifically in the President Eligibility Clause, which is the same definition as in those court cases.
Naturalized by the Naturalization Act of 1952 falling under the statute for derivative citizenship through one parent.
It is doubtless that Ted Cruz was naturalized as an alien birth to one parent-US citizen -
he is a US citizen (a dual citizen) by Act of Congress . . . NOT the "act of being born" as he lies about.
Now, was Cruz the only foreign citizen elected to the US Senate ever ?
Last edited by Jan2017; 03-06-2016 at 05:03 PM. Reason: spellin'
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us