1) from patriotsforamerica.ning: ‘What Constitutes Someone Being Called A Natural Born Citizen….’ - posted by Harry Riley - February 12
(A video of a Litigation Attorney - apparently Publius Huldah - going through those details in a 12-minute speech. She got it mostly right. But…)
Reply by Stan Stanfield 3 seconds ago (February 12)
I liked, and appreciated, her clarity of speech. I have one quibble. She says that the de Vsttel treatise on 'The Law of Nations' only talks about the parents needing to be citizens for the child to be a nbc. But other sources/researchers, e.g. Attorney Mario Appuzo, make the case that the person, to be a nbc, needs ALSO to have been born on the soil (jus soli, law of the soil). See this quote, from Apuzzo's article under the heading 'Natural Born Citizen - A Place To Ask Questions And Get the Right Answers', dated February 5, 2016:
"Having examined who the original citizens were, now let us examine who the natural born citizens were. Our U.S. Supreme Court has long confirmed that the birth circumstances that make one a natural born citizen are birth in the United States to U.S. citizen parents (meaning U.S. citizen father and mother). Under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution, all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were “natives, or natural-born citizens,” and all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be naturalized by some law. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) ("The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens")..." Thus, he is quoting from the English translation of de Vattel. So, according to this, we are talking about both jus sanguinis - law of the blood - AND jus soli.
Either way, they all - Obama, Cruz, and Rubio - need to be brought to justice on this issue. Or we are without a law of the land - the Constitution. And are under the sway of the rule of men. A/k/a arbitrary law. A/k/a tyranny.
And I for one will not stand for it.
They have claimed that people who filed suit did not have "standing".
Trump has just clamed that if it comes to it - he could file suit against Cruz for eligibility and he would have "standing" --
I understand that the reason Trump would have "standing" is because he is actually in the race and it would directly affect him. - If I am wrong, please enlighten me.
- Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (February 12)
- You are absolutely right. He would have a personal injury if he were forced to have an ineligible candidate run against him, and thus skew the voting result.
- This whole dastardly business may come down to just that decision by Trump. Andmay it happen. Or there will be hell to pay. We have operated under despotic rule long enough - perfectly demonstrating the wisdom of the constitutional Framers in this regard.
2) from universalfreepress.com: ‘Cruz: His Momma Is Natural Born. Thus, So Is He.’ - Lloyd Marcus - February 12
(More crap, and outrageously so at that. I’m getting sick and tired of all of this deliberate shit. Wake up, America! You are being had!!)
- kibitzer3 • a few seconds ago (February 12)
- First of all, your source is duplicitously quoting from a Naturalization Act (1790) that was repealed (1795) for this very reason: to take out the reference to a 'natural born citizen,' because it was misleading, according to the definition that prevailed at the time of the Constitution's creation; which requires a person to be born on the soil of citizen parents thereof to quality for the definition. (That's what makes it 'natural,' for heaven's sake.) Second, citizenship legalistically follows that of the FATHER - which I am sure your source knows as well, but is choosing to obfuscate on.
- I'm disappointed, Lloyd. I usually like your postings. But you have allowed yourself to be snookered on this one. Cruz, and Rubio, are no more eligible for that office than Obama is. Which makes him a Usurper. Which makes him needing to be removed from the office simply as the illegal occupant of it that he is - no impeachment process necessary, for his being there illegally.
- And that way, all the legislation that he has signed into law, and all the E.O.'s and P.D.'s that he has issued, and all the appointments that he has made, go with him, into the trash bin. And we need to be about that nation-saving work quickly. Before he and his minions - and masters - orchestrate a Crisis 'national emergency' that gives him the Opportunity to declare martial law, and thus destroy the Constitution in one fell swoop, rather than by the death of a thousand cuts that he is subjecting it to now.