further on americanactionnews.com: ‘The Path to the Presidency’ - March 20
(first, some background on the Comments thread, before my definitive wrap-up on the issue:)
..
The actual wording of the definition is in E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law,' Book One, Ch XIX, Sect. 212, as a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens..." And yes, it does go on: "those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers..." The mother and the father were considered as one, and the father was the one. It's called the doctrine of coverture. That part of things was changed in the 1930s, with the mother becoming a citizen in her own right; but the eligibility requirement itself still stands. The whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the constitutional Framers, in putting that special eligibility requirement in their contract for that particular office, being to make sure that the occupant of that office, who would as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, had NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Had SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S.
Our experience with the Usurper in the Oval Office as we speak should be evidence enough of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, in doing THEIR best to keep such an atrocity from happening. The rest was up to us descendants. Our bad.
•
Reply
- Cruz is eligible... it has been challenged... Trump has blustered that he would sue... he hasn't sued... supposedly it isn;t for lack of money or lawyers on retainer... so where is the follow through... maybe this is an example of the "follow through" of Trump on his promises... like his promises to his ex-wives... or the workers and suppliers and creditors he reneged on his promises to when he filed BANKRUPTCY FOUR (4) TIMES, or those 5,000 or so Trump University enrollees... this is exactly what concerns me about Trump... I don't want another chameleon politician... I want a TRUE and steadfast conservative who loves America and its Constitution and founding principles.
Anyway here is expert (not self-proclaimed and self-elected and self-exalted armchair constitutional expert) opinion...
Here is the eligibility issue in a nutshell…- http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/13/...
- http://news.yahoo.com/harvard-...
To all those here and elsewhere that like to play on this tripe... put up the class action lawsuit or stop pushing the lie and propaganda.
- 1
- •
- Reply
I have checked out your sources. And they are almost laughable in terms of hard facts. Talk
about shyster-lawyer gobbledygook. Here is a REAL site for solid info on this subject:
about shyster-lawyer gobbledygook. Here is a REAL site for solid info on this subject:
Also the blog site of CDR C.F. Kerchner (Ret.) And I could go on. But don't let me spoil your
day.
day.
1
•
Reply
•
- kibitzer3, YOU are wrong!!! This issue has been decided in several courts over the years and because TED CRUZ's mother is a US citizen Ted CRUZ is also a natural born citizen even though born abroad. Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964 and he was born in Arizona before it was a state. George Romney ran for president in 1968 and hew was born in Mexico. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. All of these presidential candidates were determined to be natural born citizens even though they were born abroad. Furthermore, In just the past few days US District Judge Jill Parrish ruled that TED CRUZ is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president.
- Ted Cruz is the only constitutional conservative left in the race. He memorized the Constitution when he was a teenager. He fought and won before the US Supreme court more times than any other lawyer in Texas history. He fought against establishment senators to stop the raising of the debt ceiling, against Obamacare and fought for and won our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms (Heller Case). While he's been fighting for limited government and our constitution, Trump has been donating thousands to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Clinton herself. He has been a liberal and supported liberals his whole life up until he decided to run for president. All i ask is for my fellow conservatives to judge both of these men by the same criteria. I will support the nominee regardless but for our country's sake i pray that it is TED CRUZ!!
- 1
- •
- Reply
- kibitzer3 Dan • 2 days ago (March 21)
Dan, with all due respect to the virtues of your candidate, and the perceived drawbacks of the other in question, that is not the issue. The issue is the legality - the eligibility requirement - of the matter. I can't speak to what has happened in the other instances to which you refer (I have been living out of the country for many years). But I know one thing: Two wrongs don't make a right. The NBC requirement was put in the Constitution to avoid THE VERY THING that has been evidenced by the Usurper in the Oval Office as we speak; to keep someone out of that particular federal office - the highest office in the land; and being the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces to boot - who was not born with SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S., by virtue of having been born in the country (or its legal equivalent) to parents who were its citizens at the time of the person's birth. That was the understanding of the term when it was put in the constitutional contract for that particular office (for which there is considerable historical evidence), and it has not been changed since by the only way that it can legitimately be changed: by a constitutional amendment.
I don't know what kind of universe that you naysayers to The Truth of things think that you are living in. But I live in, and support with every fiber of my being, a universe that is made of such qualities as Truth and Justice, to its very core. And Truth and Justice WILL out, regardless of what compromises are made along the way, by our human failures to act accordingly. Yes, to err is human. But not to correct our errors is folly. It is to slow our progress down, as spiritual beings having a human experience, to a positive end. As I say: What folly that would be. That would be to cut off our noses to spite our own faces.
Thank you, no thank you. And no thank you to those who would try to act that way to MY country. To whom I say: Get thee behind me. I will brook no such nonsense. Go live in your own universe. Of such qualities as corruption and sleaze. Leave this one alone. Or pay the consequences.
- •
- Reply
I can see that you are a very deep and thoughtful person and a deep believer in Truth and Justice. All the more reason you should get behind a candidate like TED CRUZ! Let's not make this issue more complicated than it should be. The Constitution states that the president must be at least 35, a resident of US for at least the past 14 years and a natural born citizen. However, it does not define what a natural born citizen is. Three years after the Constitution was written the Naturalization Act of 1790 did define it. It states that children of citizens of the US even if born abroad are natural born citizens unless the person's father has never been a resident of the US. Cruz's mother was born in the US and is a citizen. His father was born in Cuba but came and resided in the US before Ted was born in Canada. I hope this puts this matter to rest but if not please state your case and I will gladly study the issue some more.
Reply
- kibitzer3 Dan • 4 minutes ago (March 23)
- I appreciate your open-mindedness to look at ALL of the facts of the matter, Dan (and others in the same camp). Here's my response:
The Cruz camp & acolytes put up the matter of the Naturalization Act of 1790. They fail to let the public know that that Act was repealed, by the Naturalization Act of 1795, ON THIS VERY POINT: that they realized that the reference to a 'natural born' citizen in the earlier Act was misleading. (It was only used there in the sense that in some specific instances, the child could be, quote, "considered as" a nbc; not that it actually WAS a nbc.) The 1795 such Act struck out the reference to a 'natural born' citizen, and made it read just a 'citizen'. And both Madison and Washington acquiesced in that correction. It was never intended to be a repeal of the 'natural born' eligibility requirement for the office of the presidency. That still stood; and still stands, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary. The reference: E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law,' Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212. Look it up.- This is ALL dealt with in fine (and to say, excellent) detail at Attorney Mario Apuzzo's blog site, puzo1dotblogspotdotcom. Please check out his take on the whole matter, which includes subsequent Supreme Court decisions. And I am open to any further statement you would like to make on the matter, subsequent to your checking out these references. Because I get that you are an honorable man.
- P.S. Also, just being a 'born citizen' does not work either, in this situation, as clearly attested to by the fact that Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention proceedings, made a proposal at the Convention that the president need only be, quote, "born a citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent 'natural born' category of citizen. I append this point because some Cruz apologists try to claim that there are only two kinds of citizens, naturalized or natural born. Not so.
No comments:
Post a Comment