By The Right Scoop


Mark Levin took a few minutes tonight to address the question of Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for president and says Cruz absolutely is a natural born citizen.

He explains below:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    Sorry Mark, you cannot be trust on this issue. I defer you to Vattel as the Founders embraced his vision of citizenship during a time which was theirs. If they wanted it to be as Mark describes it, then they would have certainly said so in the constitution. Never says anywhere in the document(s) that this constitution is not concrete and you can therefore redefine whatever term you deem necessary to make your argument as the left does today. We are in bad times today with a population composed of takers and mental midgets, McShitstain comes to mind much like Roberts, Holder, Obama and a whole nest full of loonies. Well, screw that. The terms of the documents must be defined as they were back in the day or it all means nothing.

  • luckycat76

    When you label John McCain as “McShitstain” you lose all credibility as one with a credible argument.
    For my part, I’m sticking with the opinion of the CATO Institute on this one.

  • marketcomp

    warpmine Who the h*** are you to say that MARK LEVIN does not know what he is talking about? Are you a troll? Because I cannot believe that you would be so ignorant to think something so asinine. Mark gave evidence in the Constitution and using the framers as examples and he  conveyed the bases for the Cato Institute’s piece. Now perhaps you should listen again and more carefully for the second time.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    luckycat76 Are you serious? D you support the traitorous fool? Oh never mind, I could care less your opinion, I haven’t seen to many posts by you proving intellect in these matters.

  • luckycat76

    You haven’t seen many posts “proving intellect in these matters” because I have never posted anything about this before.

  • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

    marketcomp warpmine Instead of arguing his point he demeans Levin to begin with. And sounds like an ass doing so.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    marketcomp warpmine So you of all people will attack me as a troll because I differ in thought from the great Mark Levin. Hogwash I say, Levin makes great sense talking about the Liberty Amendments but on this I say he’s dead wrong. A troll, ??????Talk about insulting.

  • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

    warpminemarketcompIf you wanted to be taken seriously you wouldn’t start out with “Sorry Mark, you cannot be trust on this issue.” 
    At that point I stop reading.

  • Booker

    Thank God that’s been resolved. I’m sure the comments section will be favorable to that.

  • Orangeone

    luckycat76 Well you’ve only posted 18 comments so that says something right there.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    therightscoop warpmine marketcomp You’ve certainly read my post concerning this issue and while we may disagree with each other, I’ve never called you anything derogatory in nature. I cannot believe my eyes regarding your previous comment. Oh, well, we all have bad days and good days, this one is just like all the rest under this clown(s), bad.
    I’ve read Levin’s books and agree with 95% but this is another issue related to Obama and his legitimacy as President. I love Cruz and have the highest respect. If by some chance he became the President, we could things turned around maybe. Cruz would make a better SCOTUS cementing constitutional originality and anchoring the court with rationality.
     Levin isn’t Jesus, our Lord so I think I’m allowed to disagree as you with me. Peace my friend.

  • Mainely Steve

    Love’ya Mark, but you’re still wrong.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    Orangeone luckycat76 Never mind this. Just getting side tracked. We, Luckycat76, others and I disagree. Big deal! I’ll live with it. I’m putting it behind me. Agreed?

  • Keyes

    luckycat76 
    No he doesn’t. He describe McLame quite acurately.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    Booker Amen!

  • Keyes

    warpmine 
    You are correct.
    As President Thomas Jefferson admonished Supreme Court Justice Johnson:
    “On every question of construction, carry ourselves BACK to the TIME when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or INVENTED AGAINST it, CONFORM to the probable one in which it was passed”.
    page 28, “Original Intent” by David Barton

  • ajtelles

    It will take time…
    Mark said last week that he has not looked at the ‘natural born Citizen’ issue, but he is sure that Sen. Cruz is a ‘Citizen’ since his mother was a ‘Citizen’ when he was born.
    Of course, according to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Sen. Cruz is a ‘Citizen’ because the 1952 Act says explicitly that a child is a U.S. Citizen if they are born on foreign soil with one parent who is an ‘alien’ and one parent who is a ‘citizen.’

    However, Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 says “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time…”
    It will take time for Mark to get up to speed with the original intent of the original birthers who wrote the original words ‘natural born Citizen,’ and when Mark pursues the Clause 5 ‘natural born Citizen’ issue with the same intensity that has produced 3 great books, Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritopia, Liberty Amendments, we will probably be pleasantly surprised that Mark will agree that Sen. Cruz is NOT ‘…eligible to the Office of the President’ because, while Sen. Cruz IS a ‘Citizen’ he is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen.
    When Mark analyzes Clause 5 he will be compelled to ask this 3 part ‘natural born Citizen’ question.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    Part 1-

    By ‘born,’ did the original birthers and original authors intend born on U.S. soil OR born on foreign soil?
    U.S. soil vs. foreign soil?
    Foreign soil vs. U.S. soil?
    U.S. soil vs. foreign soil?
    Hmmm.
    Well, after winning a war against a foreign power, the original birthers obviously meant ONLY born on U.S. soil, right?
    – – – – – – – – – –

    Part 2-
    By ‘natural born,’ did the original authors intend born naturally by the union of two married persons OR two NOT married persons?
    Well, since it was 1787 America we’re talking about, it was obviously two married persons, aka parents, NOT 2 ‘hey girl… hey guy… let’s get in ON, uh huh.., right?
    – – – – – – – – – –

    Part 3-
    Was it the original intent of the original birthers that 2 persons who had a child on U.S. soil would be U.S. Citizen themselves BEFORE their child was born if they expected their child to be ‘…eligible to the Office of the President?’

    Well, it’s obvious, is it not, that the original intent was that ONLY 2 ‘Citizens’ could produce 1 ‘natural born Citizen,’ right?
    It is obvious, is it not, that 1 U.S. Citizen parent and 1 foreign citizen parent could produce ONLY 1 ‘Citizen’ and NOT 1 ‘natural born Citizen, right?

    – – – – – – – – – –
    I have Marks books that I mentioned above, and I consider Mark a friend, from a distance, of course, so I expect my ‘friend’ to put his constitutional analysis mind in gear on the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 ‘natural born Citizen’ issue and soon he too will call the original intent of the original birthers prescient, seminal AND perpetual.

    Well, I expect that Mark will start with the first question he will ask himself, did the sixth word ‘born’ mean ONLY born on U.S. soil OR born on foreign soil also?

    Art

  • Keyes

    warpmine 
    Justice James Wilson, Co-Author of America’s 1st legal commentaries on the Constitution,
    “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it”.
    page 28, “Original Intent” by David Barton.

  • Keyes

    ajtelles 
    You are correct.
    I love Cruz, but he’s not eligible and he should just say so. Say he is no more eligible than Obama and that we have the power to nullify everything the usurper has done. Say that he will not run because if he were to win, we could never nullify what the current usurper has done.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    Keyes warpmine Agreed! I would love for Cruz to be eligible in the same way McNutjob was declared and I agreed with the assessment. I just believe Mark is looking for the best candidate that could reset it all so some will look desperately to make it right.
    Believe me friends, I wish it were so but I think our best argument against what’s happened to us is to get back to original intent. We can still look to Sen Cruz for constitutional advice and consent if we made him a Justice on the SCOTUS a vacancy that will need to be filled when you declare the usurper a …usurper, nullifying his entire regime and all that went with it.

  • Keyes

    warpmine Keyes 
    Yes, that would be a good role for him as well as staying right where he is.

  • Stehekin912

    Let’s have Statesman Congressman Allen West for President and Statesman Senator Ted Cruz as the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER.  Then we’ll be gettin’ somewhere.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    What’s nice to see here on top of the arguing is that we ARE doing so about the Constitution and that was so prevalent during our past before the progressive movement quit talking about it because they knew they were in the wrong so they changed the debate. Bottom line, this is great.

  • Keyes

    warpmine 
    Justice Joseph Story, Founder of Harvard Law School; was called the “foremost of American legal writers”:
    “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments (documents) is to CONSTRUE them according to the SENSE of the terms and the intention of the parties”.
    p. 29, “Original Intent” by David Barton

  • Keyes

    warpmine 
    Agreed.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    Keyes warpmine Love those quotes, keep’em coming. More please.

  • Keyes

    Stehekin912 
    Now that is a plan. That is where Cruz is eligible and where he’s doing a great job now.
    Palin as West’s running mate.

  • ajtelles

    Keyes warpmine  
    Dittos & on point Keyes…
    – – – – – – – – – –
    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time…”

    Mark Levin uses intent, intended, intention, purpose in Liberty Amendments, so I expect that when Mark begins to analyze the sixth word ‘born’ he will begin with the ‘original intent’ of the ‘original birthers’ who wrote the ‘original words’ of the ‘original birther document’ of America.
    Specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and ‘natural born Citizen’ and the contrast in the SAME Clause 5 in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ that was put there for a practical September 17, 1787 reason.
     When the U.S. Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787 there were NO ‘natural born Citizen’ citizens old enough to be president so they had to grandfather the July 4, 1776 revolution and independence patriots into POTUS eligibility with the words ‘… or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.’
    That was the ONLY reason why the first president was an ‘…or a Citizen’ President and NOT a ‘natural born Citizen’ President.
    Art

  • Stehekin912

    Sounds like a ticket!  I’ll vote for that!

  • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

    warpmine therightscoop marketcomp  
    Don’t insult me by saying ‘Levin isn’t Jesus’. Once again you come off as arrogant and condescending, just like you did in your first comment. 
    Look, I don’t care if you agree or disagree with Levin. That’s not what I have a problem with. It’s that you immediately begin your comment demeaning a man who has spent his life studying the Constitution and you sound arrogant in doing so.
    If you can’t show him respect, then why do you demand it of others?

  • Keyes

    ajtelles Keyes warpmine 
    Exactly. The only natural born citizens at the signing of the Constitution would have been babies born after it was signed as no one was a US citizen before it was signed.
    A baby born the day before it was signed would not have been natural born. A baby born the day after it was signed would have been natural born.

  • 08hayabusa

    Just in case you are not sure what a natural born Citizen means I’ll let Rep. John Bingham of Ohio explain it to you. Keep in mind this man was born when many of the founders were still alive. (January 21, 1815 – March 19, 1900) He was a Republican congressman from Ohio, judge advocate in the trial of the Abraham Lincoln assassination and a prosecutor in the impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson. He is also the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    He stated on three recorded occasions on the Congressional floor during debates on legislation the meaning of a natural born citizen. On this occasion he confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
    [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]
    And by the way, no one in Congress that day objected to this statement. And these men had nothing but contempt for precedent in their day. Anyone who even lightly reads the Congressional debates in those days would know, that if that statement were not accurate, someone would have stood up and vigorously objected to it.
     You can find out more on the subject of natural born Citizen here:  http://obamaballotchallenge.com/natural-born-citizenship-and-history-timeline

  • ajtelles

    Keyes ajtelles  
    An EXCELLENT point Keyes.
    Common sense about “… we could never nullify what the current usurper has done.”
    Sen. Cruz is my Texas Senator, and if he were to do as you suggest, the WHOLE world would gasp in wonder that an HONEST man STOOD UP in America and defended the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
    THAT is what I expect Mark Levin to eventually say publicly on radio and in a chapter of a future book about the U.S. Constitution, and specifically focus on Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and ‘natural born Citizen.’

    Art

  • Keyes

    08hayabusa 
    And by “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” you had to be a US citizen as a foreigner would owe their allegiance to their foreign country.

  • Keyes

    ajtelles Keyes 
    Agreed!

  • 08hayabusa

    Keyes 08hayabusa Exactly!

  • ajtelles

    Stehekin912  
    Dittos….
    A Statesman Senate Majority Leader like Sen. Cruz would be the catalyst for future commercials on tv and radio like
    “When Cruz speaks people listen… intently”
    Art

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    therightscoop warpmine marketcomp Forgive me, I wasn’t trying to be so. I thought that we had this solved and put behind us. I was in error. I don’t desire any more confrontation in the comment section. Please email me for further explanation.

  • Keyes

    08hayabusa Keyes 
    Precisely. ParentS…plural…..BOTH.

  • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

    warpmine therightscoop marketcomp Don’t sweat it. I think we understand each other better now.
    Cheerio.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    therightscoop warpmine marketcomp Thumbs up, my friend.

  • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

    Despite the disagreement, Levin is right about one thing for sure…practically it’s moot because the supreme court won’t touch it.

  • steveangll77

    Four Presidents were not Natural Born.  Not a single one was not allowed to run or impeached.  The first one well within the lives of most of the signers of the Constitution.  These signers did nothing just a few political enemies complained.
    There is no remedy in the constitution for what to do.  No one is given the task to make sure.  This is aspirational language with no enforcement.
    Mark got it totally wrong.  Natural Born means exactly what it says.  You only owe allegiance to America because both of your parents only owed allegiance to America.   British Law is very clear on what Natural Born means.  Much of our law is from British Law.  But Natural Born was well established. 
    Actually Obama makes it five but so what.  Nothing can be done because the Constitution does not require anything be done about it.  Impeachment is really the only remedy and that is not going to happen.

  • Keyes

    08hayabusa 
    Ah yes, just as I have said in the past, Vattel states that the child’s citizenship follows the condition of their father….if the father is not a US citizen that person does not have natural born status. That is what I said about Obama in ’08 in regards to Obama Sr.

  • steveangll77

    therightscoop No Court will.  Obama owns the Judiciary and keeps them on a tight leash with all that “private” information provided him by the NSA.
    But this was always a loser.  Fox guards the hen house type of thing.

  • Keyes

    steveangll77 
    What four are you talking about? The first four? No one had natural born status at our founding. That is why it says OR a citizen AT THE TIME of the adoption of the Constitution.
    I think it is implied that we can do something about a usurper. Don’t you?

  • ajtelles

    therightscoop  
    Dittos TRS, it’s moot…
    Personally, the SCOTUS shoul NOT touch it because it is definitely the original intent of the original birthers that is the issue.
    If the SCOTUS did not adhere to ‘original intent’ and opine from there, well, the spittle would flow, that’s for sure.
    So, maybe, Mark Levin’s book ‘Liberty Amendments’ has come to the rescue at the right time.
    It is ‘an idea whose time has come,’ to quote a famous phrase from somewhere else.
    Maybe one future ‘liberty amendment’ could be to reinforce the original intent of the original birthers who wrote the original words and who knew the meaning of ‘natural’ and ‘born’ and Citizen’ as I wrote elsewhere on this thread today.
    Yes, Marks book ‘Liberty Amendments’ is definitely topical and will probably be a book for the ages to come and be instrumental to restore the American Republic.

    Art

  • WillJamesWynne

    The “natural born Citizen.”

    In
    order to know the definition of “natural born Citizen,” one can only know it by
    looking back to the Founding Fathers.

    In
    the opening paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, they make specific reference
    to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

    In
    paragraph two, they build on that reference with this affirmation of God given
    “natural” rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
    all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
    unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
    Happiness.”

    Clearly,
    the Founders saw natural born Citizenship as something defined by the
    “Laws of Nature” and NOT by ANY man made law. So what is the source they
    saw as authoritative in defining a natural born Citizen? The work known as The
    Law of Nations, by Emerich de Vattel.

    Article
    I, Section VIII, Clause X of the US Constitution states, “To define and
    punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against
    the Law of Nations.”

    The Founders citation of this work in
    our Constitution meant that upon it’s ratification, The Law of Nations became the authoritative source
    for defining “Offences against the Law of Nations.”

    Book
    One, Chapter 19, Section 212. Citizens
    and natives.
    “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. 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.”
    Section 215.
    Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
    It is asked
    whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The
    laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations
    must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition
    of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth
    produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any
    reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,”
    for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But
    I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to
    settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become
    a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his
    children will be members of it also.

    Vattel
    makes it crystal clear that “natural
    born Citizen” status is determined solely by the citizenship of the fathers.
    Place of birth and citizenship of the mothers are IRRELEVANT!

    Therefore,
    the Founders would have rightly declared Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
    II ineligible because his father was British subject when he was born. Kenya
    did not gain independence from British rule until late in 1964.

    They
    would also rightly declare Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz ineligible.
    Jindal because his father was a citizen of India at the time of his birth, and Rubio
    and Cruz because their fathers were citizens of Cuba when they were born.

    Not only did the Founders adhere to Vattel’snatural law definition of what they termed “natural
    born Citizen,” they used the Law of Nations extensively.

    Another
    good source of information on the “natural born Citizen” is at the website of this
    Natural Law Scholar and Constitutional Analyst,

    In conclusion, all of
    the erroneous definitions must be abandoned, and the true definition accepted and
    enforced. It is the only definition the Founders accepted. We must follow their
    lead!

    The only way We The People stop the unconstitutional
    precedent first set by Chester Alan Arthur and followed by the Barry Soetoro
    aka Barack Hussein Obama, and make null and void EVERYTHING he has done, is for
    all of us to get on the same page regarding this most critical issue. Failure
    to do so will inevitably result in others who are Constitutionally ineligible
    to be POTUS or VP being placed on the ballot.

  • 08hayabusa

    Keyes08hayabusaThat is where the meaning came from Vattel’s LAW OF NATIONS. 

    For further proof
    on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin
    Franklin.In 1775, he observed, the importance
    ofthe Law of Nations, on the Founding
    Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions.The which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775
    reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing
    house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to
    Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this
    particular volume that Franklinordered
    is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the
    “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775
    edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of
    Nations.
    There is no doubt
    that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but
    relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to
    Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition
    of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising
    state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been
    continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting.
    Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the
    members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and
    preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”

  • steveangll77

    Keyes steveangll77 Four not the first four.  I think the first one was 30 or so years later and born 12 miles inside Canada.  He claimed he was born in Vermont but it was eventually proven he lied.  Three other Presidents were not Natural Born and many ran that were not Natural Born.  George Romney and Barry Goldwater for example as Mark mentions.
    Although in the Constitution it has never been enforced.

  • Keyes

    steveangll77 Keyes 
    What are the names of these presidents?

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne 
    THANK YOU for this!
    I will save it for future reference!

  • steveangll77

    Keyes steveangll77 Do not remember do not care to research it.  It is a losing issue I no longer care about.

  • nanian102

    tinyurl.com/kk6tldj

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne 
    “The Law of nature is a rule of conduct arising out of the NATURAL RELATIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS established by the Creator and existing PRIOR to any positive precept (HUMAN LAW)…These…have been established by the CREATOR and are, with a peculiar felicity of expression, denominated in Scripture, “ordinances of heaven”.
    Noah Webster
    page 231 “Original Intent” by David Barton

  • Keyes

    steveangll77 Keyes 
    It’s not true that is why you “no longer care about it”.

  • Keyes

    steveangll77 Keyes 
    I guess if the 2nd amendment becomes a “losing issue” too…you will give up your right to bear arms.

  • WillJamesWynne

    Levin thinks he is embracing truth. He is WRONG! What he is actually doing is perpetuating a false way of thinking. Man made laws can NEVER trump or abrogate natural law. The really sad thing is, he is not willing to entertain the fact he is wrong.

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne 
    You got that right!
    “The law of nature being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself is of course SUPERIOR to (and) the foundation of ALL other laws.”
    William Findley, Revolutionary soldier , US Congress.
    Page 231 “Original Intent” by David Barton

  • 08hayabusa

    Keyessteveangll77We’ve only had one Chester Arthur. And he was born in Vermont but his father did not become a Citizen until young Arthur was fourteen years of age.

  • Keyes

    08hayabusa Keyes steveangll77 
    So that would have made him a usurper, just like Obama.

  • WillJamesWynne

    @Keyes
    Feel free to share it far and wide, just make sure you attribute it to William James Wynne.

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne 
    Will do.

  • 08hayabusa

    Keyes 08hayabusa steveangll77  That’s right. And by the way. He was the only President to burn all of his Presidential papers.

  • Keyes

    08hayabusa Keyes steveangll77 
    He burned his presidential papers? Or did he burn his records that would have shown he was not eligible? Or both?
    Well, at least he didn’t use millions of our tax dollars to hide his records.

  • ajtelles

    WillJamesWynne  
    Dittos ‘on the same page’…
    And is a sense, Mark Levin’s book “Liberty Amendments’ can be a start, specifically page204, line 8.
    “The state convention process is a product of the Constitutional Convention, envisioned for exactly this moment, and The Liberty Amendments are intended to restore the Framers’ work.”
    The key word is I am focusing on is ‘intended’ because the ‘original intent of the ‘original birthers’ MUST be the starting point in discussing any constitutional issue, whether it is interstate commerce or the ‘original intent’ meaning of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and the seminal and perpetual meaning of ‘natural born Citizen.’
    Art

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne 
    “God ….is the promulgator as well as the AUTHOR of NATURAL LAW.”
    James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; US Supreme Court Justice
    page 231, “Original Intent” by David Barton

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne 
    “God ….is the promulgator as well as the AUTHOR of NATURAL LAW.”
    James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; US Supreme Court Justice
    page 231, “Original Intent” by David Barton

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne 
    In other words, man and manmade laws CANNOT give man natural born status.

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne 
    In other words, man and manmade laws CANNOT give man natural born status.

  • WillJamesWynne

    Keyes  
    If you like, find me on Facebook at the above name.

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne Keyes 
    I got off of there a couple of years after I became a victim of the litigation jihad for posting the truth about islamic doctrine regarding a muslim who raped a local woman.
    My email carrier said they think the paper just turned my email over to his lawyer without a supeana (sp?)!

  • steveangll77

    Keyes steveangll77 Well I visited Jamestown and found out what that Amendment really means.  All of the arms the military used were privately owned.  Every cannon used to win our independence.  The Second Amendment should mean we could own a Fighter Jet fully armed with the best missiles.   As written the Military would consist of Private Militias only.
    Yea that is a losing issue as well.  But it is worth fighting to get an enforcement method for Natural Born and worth keeping the Second Amendment from being completely gutted.  For now we have very few of rights the Second Amendment was written to assure us of.  No way to enforce Natural Born. 
    I wish Orly could win but that is not going to happen.  

  • WillJamesWynne

    Keyes
    Those nasty muzzies!

  • Keyes

    steveangll77 Keyes 
    Why do you say there were numerous usurpers when that is not true?

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne Keyes 
    Yes indeed.
    I called one lawyer and he said he could not help me because he had done work for the guy. When I told him I would be dead within a month if he found out who I was he said, “I know”.

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne 
    Another good quote”
    “Against the INSIDIOUS WILES  of FOREIGN influence, I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens, the jealously of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the MOST BANEFUL foes of Republican Government”.
    George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept. 19, 1796

  • Exxe

    http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/originalism-and-the-natural-born-citizen-clause

    (pdf format for bigger font) http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/solum.pdf

    This is a great article by Lawrence B. Solum on the “natural born citizen” clause.  It shows all sides of the arguments without taking sides.  Keep in mind, this was written during the 2008 campaign, but still applies.
    It raises questions on Originalism, quotes Scalia, and compares British Law (natural-born subject) vs. natural-born citizen.
    Under British Law, this issue was brought up, and it was concluded that children of british subjects, were natural-born subjects, whose parents pledged allegiance to the Crown.

    After reading this, i’m confident that Cruz is eligible, due to both his parents having “allegiance” to the USA.  After all, this is what it truly means to be an American, by owing your allegiance to the Constitution and it’s Founding.  It’s sad to say that most natural-born citizens have no allegiance to the USA, but can still be eligible to be president.

  • WillJamesWynne

    ajtelles Keyes 
    I wonder if Levin will ever come around to the truth when he refuses to engage with “kookie birthers” like us.

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne ajtelles Keyes 
    Probably not. He usually yells at people he disagrees with.

  • Keyes

    Exxe 
    Sorry, I would be very leary of something written in 2008 in regards to this.
    Original intent is what we go by. Please read through my quotes from our Founders down below.
    Remember, starting around 2001…democrats tried to get the natural born requirement tossed out….gee…I wonder why?

  • Exxe

    Keyes Exxe Well, if you read the article, it addresses original intent.  If you don’t want to read it though, then that’s fine.  I’ll read the quotes below.

  • ajtelles

    WillJamesWynne 
    Dittos ‘natural law’…
    Natural law = born
    Positive law = oath
    – – – – – – – – – –
    Natural born = natural law = law of nature = born (by doing what comes) naturally from intelligent design

    Naturalized =  positive law = law of legislature = oath (raised hand before a judge) speaking words of allegiance.
    – – – – – – – – – –
    The natural law trumps positive law.
    I think that Mark Levin and Sen. Cruz know this already, and since they are both honorable men, they will both eventually say publicly that ‘natural born Citizen’ mean ONLY born on U.S. soil with two (2)  U.S. Citizen married parents.
    Since ‘original intent’ means ONLY one thing and not two contradictory things, the word ‘born’ ONLY means born on U.S. soil.

    Period.

    Art

  • Exxe

    WillJamesWynne So in essence, the founding fathers are hypocrites.  They didn’t want to be natural-born subjects, and didn’t adhere to the natural law of their fathers, so they declare independence against the natural law, to make their own laws.  And yet, here we are, trusting in their omnipotence.

  • Keyes

    ajtelles WillJamesWynne 
    I just think this is a really BAD time to have a convention. The left would have the opportunity to throw the entire Constitution out.

  • Keyes

    Exxe WillJamesWynne 
    No. They threw off tyranny because tyranny goes against GOD’s law.

  • ajtelles

    Exxe 
    Hmmm…
    I read it quickly, Exxe, and it seemed to be sensible, for 2008, but considering what Justice Scalia said a few months ago, the SCOTUS definitely should NOT opine on Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and ‘natural born Citizen’ ever, ever, EVER.
    Now, Justice Scalia may adhere to ‘original intent’ if Clause 5 and ‘natural born Citizen’ ever came to the SCOTUS, but if your informed opinion after reading the ‘originalism’ discussion on the pdf that you linked to is that Sen. Cruz IS eligible according to Clause 5, well, SCOTUS definitely should not… not… NOT deal with the U.S. Constitution if they will NOT adhere to the original intent of the original birthers that the word ‘born’ in ‘natural born Citizen’ can mean ONLY born on U.S. soil and NOT foreign soil ALSO, and ‘Citizen’ can mean ONLY born with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents who are BOTH married AND ‘Citizens’ BEFORE the birth of the child.
    – – – – – – – – – –

    Thanks for the PDF link, it is still topical and valuable for discussion.

    Art

  • Keyes

    08hayabusa Keyes 
    Thanks for the great info!
    There are several of you on tonight giving great detail on natural born and I appreciate it!

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael

    I have no disagreement with Mark regarding his comments….   I will say this once again – the original intent of the founders if it was 2 american citizens having a daughter or son born in or on american soil that includes military bases overseas etc which are considered american soil…. Is /was the original intent then that intent has been destroyed by the first four years of obama as president of the U.S.  obama now in a second term elected by the american people as he was the first time doubles down on the original intent being changed….
    The only way this country could get back to the original intent would be by congress impeaching this president  on the grounds of a Constitutional violation of the original intent of “Natural Born” tried and convicted that in fact obama was not a Natural Born Citizen and his presidency did violate original intent…  
    As many already know obama could be impeached but he would never be convicted by a democrat controlled senate…..  So until such time the original intent will be as Mark has laid out in this audio…..
    This is the hard cold fact or reality in this country today as is obamacare also being Constitutional because it’s a tax.. “Which of course it is not nor is it Constitutional” but reality is that the SCOTUS has made it so…  If congress repealed or rewrote the law then it would change the outcome..   Your waiting yet again on congress..  
    Look we live with departments in government that are not Constitutional never ever have been Constitutional but yet citizens are bound by them…   Cruz is Natural Born as it stands today and I would vote for him unless he changes direction like so many deep conservatives have on issues that matter to our republic…  
    Also the SCOTUS will never take a case regarding obama’s eligibility so don’t expect a ruling from the highest court of the land….  Or any more direction from that court regarding Natural Born….
    Also as I have said in the past many Natural Born citizens that have been president have proved to be this countries worst nightmare…  However obama holds the title of worst nightmare at this place and time in american history….

  • Exxe

    Keyes Exxe WillJamesWynne God’s Law? Which God? The founders had different Christian backgrounds, with some even denying that Jesus was God.  Some were deists, denying God’s humanity.  So again, if we are to bring God in this discussion, let’s agree to which one, defined by which doctrine, and which councils; otherwise it’s just a messy mixture of beliefs of their original “intent”.  Or should we obey Vattel’s God, since the founders thought he’s the basis of natural law?  After that, let’s discuss what is “natural”.  An atheistic, theist, and/or scientific natural law?  Thomistic/Aristotelian natural law?  And from there, we can move on to Scripture, and start quoting.
    Furthermore, let’s discuss natural laws (as rational beings), and laws of nature (materialistic laws, as in metaphysics).

  • Keyes

    Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael 
    Original intent has not been changed…it has been ignored.

  • WillJamesWynne

    Keyes ajtelles warpmine  
    I would love to see Cruz expose Soetoro aka Obama the usurper, and in doing so expose the cesspool which is the District of Corruption and his entire administration, but think that will only happen if we who know the truth convince him to do the right thing and honor his sacred oath.
    There are now two reasons I think that will be tough to do.
    1. During the primary, I spoke with him about “natural born Citizen” after a 912 Fort Worth meeting. When I asked for his understanding of nbC, he told me what I hear from 99% of people I ask, “Two citizen parents and born in USA or a territory thereof.”
    As I didn’t have the time to fully explain the truth, I chose to have him acknowledge that by his understanding of nbC, Obama was ineligible, which he did. I then asked him, “If elected, will you expose him for the usurper he is?” He said no.
    2. His BFF Levin has just run serious cover for him.
    Bottom line, it’s up to those of us who understand “original intent” of the Founders regarding nbC to educate those who buy into and perpetuate the falsehoods.

  • Keyes

    Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael 
    Impeaching is for LEGAL office holders. O is not legally holding the office. He should be physically removed and frog marched off to jail.

  • Keyes

    Exxe Keyes WillJamesWynne 
    “Different Christian backgrounds” believe in the same God.
    A few might have been deists, but most were strong Christians. Many had seminary degrees.
    Most were Christians. Denomination does not matter.
    You really should go to http://www.wallbuilders.com and learn about our Christian heritage.

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael

    Keyes Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael   I understand that… But the fact remains that only congress can take us back to the original intent……

  • waffle_anna

    Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael Keyes This is exactly why we need to get as many patriots into Congress as we can… the only way to stop this nightmare.

  • Keyes

    waffle_anna Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael Keyes 
    …and we must stop the House from passing ANY immigration bill when they get back. They do that and it goes to the Senate and they will pass it so it can go into committee where they will add their bill to it. Our country will be gone if that happens.

  • Keyes

    Exxe Keyes WillJamesWynne 
    Again, you need to read the writings of our Founders. We are to go by their original intent. Their belief in Jesus was very strong.

  • poptoy1949

    Mark you are a Patriot and I would go through hoops for you.  However your passion is getting the best of your judgement.  Once again I urge you to consult with Dr. Jerome Corsi over at WND.  He explains it beautifully and accurately.  I will stand on my judgement.  Someone out there had better be able to interpret the Constitution correctly or we are in trouble as a nation and we give Obama his due to interpret the 
    Constitution his way and I will never accept that.  Therefore consult the correct people.  Snap decisions are not needed at this time in our History especially with a maniac in the Oval Office.

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael

    Keyes waffle_anna Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael   I know but i worry as long as we have the house leader we do – things look very bleak for this republic…..

  • WillJamesWynne

    ajtelles
    Natural born Citizen status only requires citizen fathers. Mothers and places of birth are irrelevant. See my posted article, The “natural born Citizen.”

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael

    Yes..  but the american people made him a office holder…  if he had
    been impeached in his first year as president and or is impeached and
    convicted by congress on those grounds some time soon maybe…  
    None of this as of right now changes the real fact that we will go to war and
    have laws made under this president…  Just because we can say he is not
    president because of the Natural Born issue does not make him not
    president…   Correct?

  • Keyes

    Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael 
    Morsi was made an office holder too and look what the Egyptians did.

  • ajtelles

    Keyes Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael  
    Keyes…
    That ‘original intent quote is a marketable bumper sticker.
    Or text for a t-shirt, a hat, rulers,  window stickers, web site home pages, etc.

    Thanks for the text, I’ll use it on my sites.
    Art

  • Keyes

    ajtelles Keyes Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael 
    Send me some royalties! ;-)

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael

    waffle_anna Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael Keyes   Yes I agree but I can not say how many times – WE have thought we did just that and we then behold we did not… 
    Not saying to ever stop trying of course..  We must find the right true people and that maybe found only in our average good citizen that has never held a government office….

  • ajtelles

    Keyes ajtelles Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael  
    My opt-in list isn’t big enough to generate royalties… yet.

  • Keyes

    ajtelles Keyes Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael 
    ……yet….

  • Exxe

    KeyesExxeWillJamesWynneThis is not correct.  It’s not the same God if every denomination can define what/who God is.  There’s a reason the Nicene Creed came about, because of all the Gnostics and Heretics, such as Arianism,  in the 1st and 2nd century.  Some founders were deists and unitarians, which do not adhere to the creed.  Here’s a link to each of their religious beliefs: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
    I’m going to stop this discussion now, because it’s getting way off-topic from the original post.  Glad you wanted a discussion though.

  • Keyes

    Exxe Keyes WillJamesWynne 
    Our Founders looked to the Bible.

  • waffle_anna

    Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael Keyes waffle_anna I know… We really are in a Catch-22 situation. I don’t know if Cruz is eligible or not and I will not comment – however, Cruz may be the only man we can count on since he is the most media-savy and will shield from any outside attacks against him, if he does decide to run.
    But… maybe it’s a trap by the leftists. If he doesn’t run, they will say he’s a coward. If he runs and wins, the NBC clause will be moot – anyone could run at that point, and whether that’s good is debatable. There are many great men that are not NBCs and there are many vile men that are NBCs. 
    Whichever happens, I pray that it will save America in the long run.

  • WillJamesWynne

    Exxe
    NO, the Founders only exempted from nbC qualification status those who were merely “a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” and that included most, if not ALL, of them.

  • Keyes

    WillJamesWynne Keyes ajtelles warpmine 
    None of them have the balls to call Obama out…except Dr. Alan Keyes.

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael

    Keyes Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael   Yes many for some reason think that the military is wrong by taking back the country from the Muslim Brotherhood which I am not one of..  I think we that truly see and know what is before our eyes are not enough to do the same in this country…..  Our own citizens are this countries worst nightmare also…..

  • Keyes

    waffle_anna Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael Keyes 
    The reason our Founders thought it imperative the president have natural born status is they did not want any dual loyalties…the president is commander of our armed forces,afterall.
    Heck, look at Rubio. His parents weren’t US citizens at the time of his birth and he has clearly shown he has no loyaltiy to this nation., It’s all about his ethnicity…Spanish surname. I do wonder if he has a soft spot for Cuba…he seems to with his support for giving our country away to third world invaders.

  • Keyes

    Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael Keyes 
    Just think if the Germans had removed that usurper with the name of Hitler early on.

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael

    poptoy1949  Just as a example SCOTUS has decided that the government can TAX about anything it wants….  Only congress can now change that ridiculous decision…  Or in other words what was once fact is no longer fact only a congress can make the facts – facts once again…..

  • ajtelles

    WillJamesWynne ajtelles  
    Yes, in 1787 America…
    The original intent in 1787 America was the male, the husband, determined the citizizenship status of the woman, the wife by marriage.
    Also, the citizenship status of the husband AND the wife’s citizenship status by marriage THEN determined the citizenship status of the child.
    My point in emphasizing the born with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents is to tie it down with language that is comparable to a physical square knot, not a slip knot. 
    See, two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents does double duty, without being intellectually offensive to those who may not be as informed about the history of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and the citizenship requirement to be ‘…eligible to the Office of the President’ and the contemporary nuances of the original intent language of the original birthers who knew what Emer de Vattel wrote in The Law of Nations.

    Art

  • Keyes

    Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael poptoy1949 
    I believe John Roberts was blackmailed. That is what is so horrifying about the NSA spying…I believe they are blackmailing judges and legislators.

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael

    Keyes Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael poptoy1949 Could have been and maybe that is why he made such a ridiculous decision so that congress could make it clear by law just what is a TAX and what a TAX is not…. 
    the obama administration is to this day not calling it a TAX..  All this could be remedied by a congress….

  • K-Bob

    Citizen at birth. Eligible.
    Anything else is personal opinion, and will not keep anyone off of a ballot.

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael

    Keyes waffle_anna Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael  
    Yes that is correct about dual loyalties.. But I as I have said even though that was case it did not prevent a Natural Born citizen from attempting to destroy the republic from within….  Today our own citizens are the problem almost more of the problem then our enemies….

  • K-Bob

    WillJamesWynne  
    Your statement about “natural law” has nothing to do with this subject.  The NBC clause was written by men, for men.
    Unless you can read minds, you have no idea about what another man does or does not wish to do.

  • K-Bob

    WillJamesWynne ajtelles  
    That’s a fine personal opinion.
    It is not the law.

  • Keyes

    Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael Keyes waffle_anna 
    Part of the problem is out of control illegal and legal immigration. We can’t assimilate all these folks.

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael

    therightscoop  That is correct….  And i expect no further direction coming from the court in any opinion going forward….

  • Keyes

    K-Bob WillJamesWynne ajtelles 
    Where is this law you are talking about K-Bob?
    The Constitution does not say “citizen at birth”. It says “Natural born”.

  • K-Bob

    steveangll77 Mark did not have it “totally wrong” the research into British law turned up such phrases as “swearing allegance,” etc.  It was not codified, it does not appear as definite in Blackstone, and is left as an unofficial definition.  The phrase is left as a guide to the future to stress that loyalty is important, but it is not defined explicitly.
    And that means it’s left up to legislation, which can change.  The only remedy is to Amend the Constitution.

  • K-Bob

    08hayabusa Keyes  
    That formation is not an expression of the intent of “both”.
    It means one or the other or both.  And it has since the days of Shakespeare. If men meant both, they should say “both”.

  • Keyes

    K-Bob 08hayabusa Keyes 
    How do you know it means one or the other or both?  If that was the case, that would be where one would need to be explicit.
    Parents is plural and comes across as ‘both’. Not one or the other.

  • K-Bob

    Keyes ajtelles  
    He is eligible.  He doesn’t need to go near this argument, since it serves no purpose for him, the nation, or conservatism.
    The law will let him on all ballots, and no one has standing to challenge it. So this argument only has merit if we plan on changing the Constitution.

  • K-Bob

    Booker Heh.

  • Keyes

    K-Bob Keyes ajtelles 
    He’s not eligible.
    It most certainly serves our nation to “go near” this argument.
    What law are you talking about?

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael

    ExxeWillJamesWynne I believe it was and is the desire of the founders to form a nation new that had a restricted government with numerated powers…  Guaranteeing life liberty pursuit of happiness that is only given to peoples by their creator or unalienable….  The founders did not have that from the King that ruled over them….

  • K-Bob

    WillJamesWynne Keyes ajtelles warpmine  
    You assume only the people who agree with you on NBC understand the Constitution.  That’s a very weak position from which to launch into an argument.

  • K-Bob

    Keyes K-Bob ajtelles  
    Seriously? “What law?”  Did you not listen to the clip?
    He’s eligible. Not one person declaring otherwise will prevent him from getting on a ballot, should he choose to do so.

  • K-Bob

    Keyes K-Bob 08hayabusa  
    Parents has been used to refer to “parentage” for centuries.  It is not an explicit term meaning “both”.
    We have a perfectly good word that predates the 13 Colonies tha means “both,” explicitly.  It’s “both.”

  • K-Bob

    Keyes K-Bob WillJamesWynne ajtelles  
    Where?  It’s here, in the US.  Where the heck did you think it was.  The Moon?
    Listen to the clip.

  • ajtelles

    K-Bob WillJamesWynne ajtelles  
    Dittos…
    And THAT is a ‘fine personal opinion’ too.
    And?
    However, I was commenting on the original intent of the original birthers and how THEY determined the citizenship status of the wife and consequently the citizenship status of the child.
    That’s not a matter of law, but a matter of history.
    Emer de Vattel and The Law of Nations was very important to our original birthers and informed their understanding of how to determine the difference between a Clause 5 ‘natural born Citizen’ vs. a Clause 5 ‘…or a Citizen’ in 1787.
    The word ‘born’ of ‘natural born Citizen’ had the original intent meaning of ONLY born on U.S. soil and did NOT include the contradictory meaning of ALSO born on foreign soil.
    Why?
    Well, obviously because after winning a war of independence from a foreign power, the original birthers did NOT want a foreign born citizen to occupy the office of president, right?
    Art

  • WillJamesWynne

    ajtelles
    What was true at the adoption of our Constitution in 1787 and before that is still true now. Vattel nailed it, the Founders agreed and upon the adoption of our Constitution, the Law of Nations became the authoritative source for defining “Offences against the Law of Nations.”

  • WillJamesWynne

    K-Bob ajtelles
    Not my opinion. Man made law can NEVER abrogate natural law.

  • ajtelles

    K-Bob  
    Dittos K-Bob…
    Citizen at birth. Eligile.
    IF.
    If you are referring to Article 1 Section 3 Clause 3.
    “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been Nine Years a Citizen of the United States, …”
    “Anything else is personal opinion and it will keep anyone off of a ballot,” right?
    – – – – – – – –

    If a person is NOT a Citizen they can NOT be a Senator, right?
    Well, if a person is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen’ then THEY can NOT be President, right?
    – – – – – – – – – –

    It is so obvious, right?

    Art

  • Keyes

    K-Bob Keyes WillJamesWynne ajtelles 
    I didn’t say what country. I said what law. Levin’s opinion is not law.

  • WillJamesWynne

    @K-Bob
    Natural Law has everything to do with this subject. It’s that simple.

  • K-Bob

    ajtelles K-Bob  
    Probably.  And by being a citizen at birth, he’s a natural born citizen, until some law or Amendment makes him otherwise.
    The rest is personal preference, and will never keep anyone with similar parentage off a ballot, just as it didn’t with barack.

  • Keyes

    K-Bob WillJamesWynne 
    Read minds? Nope. I can read their quotes that I have posted throughout this thread.

  • K-Bob

    WillJamesWynne  
    Doesn’t matter.  The only law that can keep him off a bloot is either and Act of Congress, or an Amendment.  One which grants standing to a challenger.

  • K-Bob

    Keyes K-Bob WillJamesWynne  
    Mark Levin has posted no quotes here.

  • Keyes

    K-Bob ajtelles 
    No he’s not. Quite frankly, I don’t see how he would even have been a citizen at birth anyway. It  seems he would have been a citizen of Cuba since his father was Cuban.

  • K-Bob

    Keyes K-Bob WillJamesWynne ajtelles  
    So you appear to be refusing to listen to the clip.  Not sure how that helps your position.

  • Keyes

    K-Bob Keyes WillJamesWynne 
    I have posted our Founder’s quotes.

  • K-Bob

    Keyes K-Bob ajtelles  
    This is no longer a patrilineal society.  We’re barely a society at all.

  • Keyes

    K-Bob Keyes ajtelles 
    Oh, well then that makes him eligible.

  • K-Bob

    Keyes K-Bob WillJamesWynne  
    Yes, you have.  So have many.  But the claim was about what Levin “entertains” in his own mind.

  • K-Bob

    Keyes K-Bob ajtelles  
    No, it just means no one can get standing to make him ineligible.  And it shall remain so until an Act of Congress or an Amendment changes it.

  • Keyes

    K-Bob Keyes WillJamesWynne 
    It’s not about what Levin entertains in his mind. It is about what the Founders entertained when the wrote the natural born requirement.

  • Keyes

    K-Bob Keyes ajtelles 
    Nonsense.

  • Keyes

    K-Bob Keyes ajtelles 
    Cruz could do the decent thing and just admit he’s not eligible.

  • K-Bob

    ajtelles K-Bob WillJamesWynne  
    Those are nice.  They won’t keep anyone with similar parentage to Cruz off a ballot.
    You know I would rather have the more restrictive definition be the one operative.  It isn’t, and won’t be without that Amendment.  (I’ve been including “Act of Congress” as an alternative, but such an Act would have to pass SCOTUS review if challeneged, and that means it could be overturned.)

  • K-Bob

    Keyes K-Bob ajtelles  
    I’m not sure why anyone would consider it “decent” to appease a tiny minority of folks who have camped on one of the several interpretations of NBC.
    Odd, more like.

  • WillJamesWynne

    K-Bob
    What you state doesn’t matter IS the problem.

  • K-Bob

    KeyesK-BobWillJamesWynne
    No.  The point to which I was responding to was this claim:
    “The really sad thing is, he is not willing to entertain the fact he is wrong”
    It requires mind reading.
    Which would be really useful at times, I’m sure.

  • WillJamesWynne

    K-Bob Keyes
    It doesn’t take mind reading to take someone at their word, and Levin definitely states that he is NOT interested in discussing this issue with those he has defined as “kookie birthers.”

  • K-Bob

    WillJamesWynne K-Bob Keyes  
    Big diff between being willing to discuss it and whatever a person might think.
    I have several things I disagree with many fine people on, but I’m not going to discuss it with them.  There’s no point.

  • ajtelles

    K-Bob WillJamesWynne Keyes ajtelles warpmine  
    Dittos, K-Bob, dittos…
    Some arguments, uh, more like assertions, are very weak.
    It sure helps when people adduce a specific Article, or Act or Amendment, or when they opine, even a SCOTUS ‘decision’ that some folks consider to be law… Roe v. Wade comes to mind.
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    Original intent is important.

    Also the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn case that Mark clarifies on page 129 in The Liberty Amendments.
    The SCOTUS said that Filburn, who used a portion of his land to grow wheat for personal use and local sale, was guilty of exceeding the quota for wheat production according to The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 that 
    “…set the quota on the amount of wheat he was allowed to produce.
    “When Filburn exceeded the quota, he was fined by the federal government.”
    The issue is the commerce clause that was violated by SCOTUS then and it is applicable to the recent SCOTUS decision about ObamaCare.
    BOTH SCOTUS decisions ignored the ‘original intent’ of the original birthers and original authors of the U.S. Constitution.
    Original intent was important in 1787 America and it is being ignored today in 2013 America when people say that a person born on foreign soil with one alien parent and one citizen parent is ‘…eligible to the Office of the President.’
    Art

  • WillJamesWynne

    K-Bob   

    Who are you assuming has not listened to the clip?

  • WillJamesWynne

    K-Bob WillJamesWynne Keyes 
    Levin makes it crystal clear what he thinks about this subject, AND equally so on his unwillingness to engage ALL who disagree with him on it. In fact, he actually insults and disparages us. No mind reading required to understand that position.

  • ajtelles

    K-Bob Keyes ajtelles 
    Only 1…
    K-Boib, think it through.
    There is ONLY 1 interpretation of nbC.
    For example, can the original intent of ‘born’ mean ONLY born on U.S. soil or can the original intent of ‘born ALSO mean born on foreign soil.?
    It obviously can NOT mean 2 contradictory things, since the original birthers and original authors, after winning a war against a foreign power, did NOT want a foreign citizen to have control of the executive office AND the U.S. military in 1787 America and EVER.
    Art

  • ajtelles

    K-Bob ajtelles  
    Hmmm.
    “Probably’ means what?
    It is obvious in Clause 5 that ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘…or a Citizen’ did NOT mean the same thing in 1787 America because, since no ‘natural born Citizen’ citizens were old enough to be elected president on April 30, 1789, that is why the first president was an ‘…or a Citizen … at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.
    George Washington, who was born before July 4, 1776, was a post July 4, 1776  naturalized citizen by adhering to the revolution, and so he qualified to be grandfathered into POTUS eligibility as an ‘…or a Citizen’ … at the time…’
    Art

  • K-Bob

    ajtelles K-Bob Keyes 
    No.  A logical person may choose one interpretation, and exclude the others.  That is an entirely different prospect from declaring the others do not exist.
    If those others did not exist, we would not be having this discussion.

  • K-Bob

    WillJamesWynne K-Bob Keyes  
    Just state what he actually said.  Don’t impute thoughts to him.  That’s not useful in a serious discussion.

  • K-Bob

    WillJamesWynne K-Bob  
    Keyes.
    The person on the left in the list of at-sign tags is the person being responded to.  Livfyre makes this very confusing.
    Sometimes it’s best to delete the other names in the list, to make it clear you only mean to respond to one particular person, and not “the subthread, in general”

  • K-Bob

    ajtelles K-Bob WillJamesWynne Keyes warpmine  
    The problem, Art, is that other opinions reigned at the time, as well. (They’ve been documented ad nauseum in these discussions.) And then come complications, like women being eligible to hold property and vote.  Pregnant soldiers overseas. Kidnap victims. Children found here with no birth record and unclaimed by parents. People declared NBC by law. Children born here to parents that have since revoked citizenship. States that did not exist (West Virginia), and were not territories prior (moot, but still). Citizens of territories not explicitly named as territories, but are under US control. Civil War.
    And those are all fairly legitimate, historical concerns.  What happens in the future? Like stupid Treaties that could be made by the President and somehow get ratified by an even more stupid Senate that could make us all “global citizens”.
    This is why I say we need that Amendment.

    But back to understanding “intent.” It’s one thing to know the the Commerce clause (for example) has been greatly abused.  It’s an entirely different proposition to declare what it means, specifically.
    This it a key factor in the Amendments Levin has placed in the book.  He tried his best to confine them to large, structural issues, much as the framers did, and not redress specific damage done directly to the Constitution.
    In other words, he’s using the Constitution itself, to create changes that provide a means to restore health to the most important concept embodied in the instrument that binds the nation, namely: that the Federal government shall be limited by the people.
    Now, almost anyone can understand what is meant by “limited” in that last statement.  We all know that was perhaps one of the few things upon which all the founders were unanimous from the beginning.  And yet, the attempt to define that concept is fraught with peril to the person attempting it.
    So instead, the limits are both specific, and generalized.  It’s up to the very much intended–and expected–contention between and among the various powers (Executive, Legislative, Court, States, Citizens) to decide what the concept really means when dealing with the generalized limits (like the Tenth Amendment, which seems awfully clear to us, but somehow isn’t to our politicians).

    Levin’s ideas are intended to give us some way to slowly regain some semblance of control over the Federal government, and restore the Sovereignty of the states. Once that is done, we will still have contention over the Commerce clause for generations to come.  But the states will have some chance to pare back the totalitarianism, and keep it from spinning out of control again.

    So, back to the NBC thing, then. We do need that Amendment.  But even so, no such amendment will work if it includes everything in that stupid list I put in the first paragraph. It will have to be more general, and that means the contention will continue, as it should.  It just will become clearer that loyalty is expected, and we prefer someone who is a second-generation American.

  • Exxe

    Malkiel_kol_hakavodlaelExxeWillJamesWynneThe Founders went against God’s natural law though.  They disobyed the Divine
    Right of Kings, and went into rebellion.  If they really respected the
    natural law, they would’ve stayed subjects to the King.  My point is, that people are bringing up God’s law, and natural law, to justify their positions.  They keep using the words “natural law”, without knowing it’s proper meanings.

  • paleophlatus

    Mark Levin…one more lawyer falls in with the camp followers of the “natural born citizen equating to natural born” group. Define that phrase, Levin. Natural born…hmmm, not “unnatural born”, like caesarean birth? Either way, you say. Then ‘natural’ birth must mean birth to woman… That is almost ANYONE ! Then, what about ‘citizen’? Oh, if Mom is a citizen, then babe is also? Of what country ? The country of birth, you say? Makes no difference, you say. What about a Father, you NEVER mention him. Even the State Department requires a father be known in the determination of citizenship… Only if not known

  • paleophlatus

    MARK LEVIN…one more lawyer falls in with the camp followers of the “natural born equates to natural born Citizen” group. Define that phrase, Levin. Natural born…hmmm, not “unnatural born”, like caesarean birth? Either way, you say. Then ‘natural’ birth must mean birth to woman… That is almost ANYONE ! Then, what about ‘Citizen’ ? if Mom is a citizen, then babe is also? Of what country ? The country of birth? Makes no difference, you say. What about a Father, you NEVER mention him. Even the State Department is interested in him! And civilized history was, too. (but not you, nor should we, the great unwashed ?) And, if mom is NOT a citizen, then babe is not, either, but must be naturalized to become one, and then babe can become POTUS? So, then, any child born naturally, or caesarean if necessary, can become POTUS ! Even if it takes Naturalization to make it a citizen ! Wow. Double WOW! But wait…where does natural born CITIZEN come in, beside the Constitution? Why is it that you never make the connection, or some kind of definition ? GET THE HELL OFF MY E-MAIL…YOU BIG DOPE ! And come get your book… I suddenly no longer trust you…either! Small loss on your part, I realize. But it makes me feel better!

  • paleophlatus

    More accurately, i believe that Roberts described the penalties described in Obamacare to constitute a tax ( later to become the topic of suits by several states that as such, it was illegally originated in the Senate) and not to be considered to be within the province of the Commerce Clause.

  • paleophlatus

    No, (to the double negative). If he is not eligible because of the nbC issue, he is not and never was eligible.
    He is holding the office illegally and according to some, impeachment is the only way to remove him.
    Strange, if the Founders thought of someone usurping the office, why did they not make that illegal act subject to something more severe and make provision for that removal as well?
    Some think they did. There is a statute in the laws for the District of Columbia for the summary removal for usurpation of “…any person ineligible to hold the office they occupy, civil or military” within the District. When presented with a writ of quo warranto by the district court of DC, they must present their authority to hold the position. Failing to prove their eligibility, they are to be removed.
    This is part of the DC Code (akin to the US Code for the states) that was writtin by Congress as directed by the original Constitution, for “the seat of the government”. Some construe this direction to be mandated and indicative of the intent of the Constitution. And as such, another method of removal for severe conditions, as should be a failure of the nbC requirement, as NOT defined by Levin, apparently.

  • pushtheredbutton

    Whatever side of the argument you fall on (and I fall on the side that believes Ted to be ineligible, love him as I do), calls to be respectul to Mark in this discussion are silly. I will have no respect for a man who has no respect for me and where I’m coming from. 
    Listen to the way Mark demeans the opposing side in the clip above, calling them names and such-like. This has long been a trait of Mark and has been a reason why I stopped respecting him some time ago. (In fact, its why I have lost respect for a lot of these radio hosts since I first started listening to them, they become so egotistical, even against people who are normally on the same side as them, that its hard to stomach)  We can’t decry the bully tactics of the left and then engage in it ourselves, especially as against people who are supposedly on our side. 
    Really Mark, you’re not the only constitutional lawyer who has an opinion on this. There are others just as qualified and even some more qualified who disagree. Not all are basement keyboard warriors like you represent them to be, and it wouldn’t hurt for you to acknowledge that. 
    Till you do so and adequately take on this debate, addressing other glaring issues such as the doctrine of original intent, you will have no credibility on this matter so far as I can see and will further lose more credibility on other issues too.
    (The actual debate is another issue altogether, but as I have said, I’m more inclined to be cautious and side with the birthers on this one. (You guys have a mighty document in the form of your Constitution and it should be jealously-gaurded, the envy of the free world, nothing in it should be taken for granted.))

  • https://sites.google.com/site/warpminesblog/ warpmine

    pushtheredbutton I liked the way in which you worded your objection. Wish I had done so to avoid any callousness.

  • The Sentinel

    I’m amazed at all the “discussion” here.
    If it has been proven that someone is eligible (or ineligible), then it’s done. Why keep beating the dead horse?
    And personal attacks on Mark Levin? Really? Sheesh.

  • pushtheredbutton

    Forget your ‘callousness’. I wrote what I wrote for you, with your preceding exchanges with The Scoop in mnd. Mark’s fans can’t expect from others what he himself doesn’t give.

  • TheBeaver

    Does not matter what side of the debate one takes, the problem with it will be the distraction it will bring to his campaign efforts – the media, the opposition , forever will focus on this. His message will get lost in all of this . There must be others out there that carry no controversy or questions of eligibility. Heck, even conservatives on this site are in doubt, from what I’m reading.
    How about Allen West?

  • pushtheredbutton

    warpmine pushtheredbutton PS Thanks too for your compliment.

  • http://rightwing.us/ joehorton21

    Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael NIce post, you’re a great American….unfortunately whether or not Obamacare is constitutional or not doesn’t seem to bother anyone in the least.

  • CaseyGeorge

    TheBeaver Controversy is media created and media driven.  If it’s Cruz, it’ll be eligibility.  If it’s Paul, it’ll be that he doesn’t agree with the Civil Rights Act and is racist.  If it’s West, it’ll be that he thinks Communists are in Congress.  Heck, even if it’s Chris Christie (ugh), it’ll be that he’s not healthy enough for the job.
    The media will create a controversy for EVERY Republican there is…it’s pointless to pick based on who might create controversy, because the controversy will be created for them all.

  • jdbaird

    The founders never intended for person born in Canada to be president, it’s absurd to think otherwise. I ask that question all the time: “Do you honestly believe that the founders intended for a person born in Canada to be president?” and no one will answer it because they know what the answer is, no, and that doesn’t line up with their desire that he be president so they choose to ignore me or argue around it without answering the question. That’s cool, I know I’m right.

  • CaseyGeorge

    jdbaird Then in all honesty,  the founders F’ed up that part of the Constitution…If I intend something to be followed, I write it out clearly and concisely.  Just sayin’

  • sDee

    I am totally sick of lawyers. It is all a game to them.

    It is clear now that We the People are being played on this from all angles. Deeply troubling. The elephants lose the game before it starts, because the globalists and the media controls the rules.

    Had
    Cruz stood up and simply said…
     “It is not clear if I meet the US Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen requirement. I believe deeply in
    honoring both the letter and intent of the Constitution.Therefore, I have established a Congressional task force to mount a challenge
    to my potential candidacy and previous Presidential ballots. Beyond my personal politcal aspirations we must clear this up once and for all, in America’s sovereign interests.”

  • sDee

    jdbaird 
     Precisely.

    When no one can answer a most fundamental question like yours, one that all of the hype is meant to camouflage, the answer is clear.

  • sDee

    The US Constitution is no longer taught in US  law schools. Only case law and precedent.  The Constitution is being destroyed by lawyers – buried under mounds of stinking precedent.
    NBC serves a signular prupose for a singular federal office – to prevent foreign uspruption of the highest seat. 
    So consider the precedent We the People have stupidly let minions of two politcal Parties set in their concerted strategy to destroy our sovereignty.The President of the United States need not be born to US citizen parents. Or conversely, the person born to a foreign leader and enemy of the United States is eleigble to be President.
    The President of the United Stated need not be born in the Untied States. Or conversely the person born in  a country sworn to the destruction of the United  States of America is eleigble to be President so long as the woman impregnated by an enemy in that country was at some time granted US citizenship
    The people of the UK and Europe relinquished their sovereignty to the EU and  are now governed by an unelected council ruled by and unelected globalist in Brussels.
    We too have surrendered our sovereignty  to a single Party without a fight.

  • sDee

    The Sentinel  
    It has also been “proven” multiple times, in mulitple court cases,  that individual citizens are not a milita and do not have an uninfringed right to bear arms, and  that federal, state and local governemtns have the power to control and restrict our rights under the Constituion to bear arms.
    Thank God we keep beating that dead horse!

  • ajtelles

    The CATO Institute…
    Mark quoted from the CATO article which can be read here
    >> http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/cato-institute-daily-caller-declares.html 
    An example of the rhetorical problem is found in paragraph 5.
    – – – – – – – – – –

    What’s
    a “natural born citizen”? 
    The Constitution doesn’t say, 
    but the
    Framers’ understanding, …

    indicate that the phrase means 
    both 
    birth abroad to American
    parents … [ = foreign soil ]

    and [ = BOTH are possible ]

    birth within the
    nation’s territory [ = U.S. soil ]

    regardless of parental citizenship. [ = U.S. Citizen AND foreign citizen ]

    The Supreme Court
    has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various
    contexts.”
    – – – – – – – – – –
    Response to CATO and Mark –

    NOPE, SCOTUS has NOT confirmed ‘THAT’ both / and definition because ‘THAT’ is self-contradictory because “THAT’ is said to mean 2 different things, which is a logical absurdity.
    – – – – – – – – – –
    At about 6min 10sec Mark mentions the 1790 Naturalization Act which DOES refer to a child born on foreign soil with parents, plural, which obviously implies married parents, not two ‘hey girl – hey guy, let’s get it on, uh huh’ people who are NOT married, and says that the child IS a ‘natural born Citizen.’
    However, Mark NEVER adduces the 1795 Naturalization Act which repealed the 1790 words ‘natural born Citizen’ and replaced them with the single word ‘Citizen’ for a practical 1795 reason.
    This is internal document proof.
    It is proof that ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ do NOT mean the same thing, AND that Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 ‘soil’ is as important to the birth as Clause 5 ‘soil’ is to the 14 years residency requirement and attaining to the required 35 years of age to be ‘…eligible to the Office of the President.’

    In the phrase ‘natural born Citizen,’ the single word ‘born’ at the time in 1787 obviously referred to ONLY being born on U.S. soil and NOT foreign soil, for the simple fact that, after winning a war against a foreign power, England, the original birthers and original authors did NOT want a foreign born citizen to OCCUPY the executive office AND control the U.S. military, which was the original intent of John Jay in his note to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention.
    Mark said, ‘… Cruz will qualify under the 1790 Naturalization Act.’
    Yes, Mark, under the 1790 Act, but NOT the 1795 Act.

    – – – – – – – – – –
    Prior to referencing the 1790 Naturalization Act, Mark read from the CATO article and the 1940 Act, which is accurate.
    However, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act specifically says in section (g) that a child born on foreign soil with one ‘alien’ parent and one ‘citizen’ parent is, yes, a ‘Citizen’ from birth, but it does NOT negate Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and the constitutional requirement, NOT an Act of Congress articulation, a constitutional requirement, that the child be a ‘natural born Citizen’ to be ‘…eligible to the Office of the President.’
    After reading Mark’s newest book, The Liberty Amendments, where he uses the words, intend, intended, intention, purpose, and etc. often, I expect that Mark will also consider the ‘original intent’ of the ‘original birthers’ as not only precient and seminal, but also perpetual.
    The ‘original intent’ of the ‘original birthers’ who were the ‘original authors’ of the 1787 Clause 5 words ‘natural born Citizen’ trump the 1790 Naturalization Act words ‘natural born Citizen’ as the 1790 Naturalization Act word ‘Citizen’ signifies, and  Clause 5 also trumps the 1940 Act, as the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act word ‘Citizen’ signifies.
    Sen. Cruz, my excellent Texas Senator, according to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is NOT ‘…eligible to the Office of the Presidency’ and the original birthers are the ‘original intent’ authority, NOT the CATO Institute article.

    Art

  • sDee

    ajtelles  
    Orginal Intent. It is clear now. It was clear then. 
    Without standing on original intent and fighting popular notion tooth and nail , we would all be disarmed by now.

  • ajtelles

    sDee ajtelles  
    Dittos sDee – ‘fighting popular notion tooth and nail’…
    It seems that many of our conservative friends are as misinformed about ‘original intent’ as the Obama truthers & birthers were deliberately obscurantist and obfuscationist.
    It seems that the I-I-I-OCCUPY-America-in-Chief Obama way of occupying the oval office is having a residual effect on right thinking conservatives.
    But, that’s what words are for, right?
    Control the words
    Control the language
    Control the conversation
    Control the conclusion
    – – – – – – – – – –

    Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments, Restoring the American Republic, discusses the Article 5 constitutional way to 
    Control the convention
    Control the amendments
    Control the government
    – – – – – – – – – –
    Well, it’s a start in restoring our constitutional republic and putting control BACK in the hands of ‘We the People … in order to form a more perfect [seminal & perpetual] Union .. to ourselves and our Posterity …’
    are taking control of this conversation… with words… just words… oh so powerful WORDS.

    Art

  • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/index dmacleo

    I’ve always followed the intent at time of writings and not subsequent rulings. and this is actually harder for me and other like me.

    oh well. I don’t follow a living document.
    so if cruz on the ticket I will just sit back and shut up. sucks as he is a good guy.

  • linguaphonica

    Actually the US Constitution is still taught quite a bit in law schools. Generally they require you to take course on it.
    Of course constitutional law also comes from decisions, those whole pesky philosophies of judicial review and stare decisis being foundational legal principles, but rest assured we learn quite a bit about the constitution.

  • Laurel A

    Round and round we go where she stops nobody knows….AND ON A MOOT POINT.

  • K-Bob

    The Sentinel   
    Because some people insist on winning an unwinnable argument by sheer repetition. It’s that ancient urge in man toward bureaucracy: redoubling the effort after losing sight of the objective.

    Fortunately they are a very small minority, or we’d never have a shot at Restoration.
    Also fortunately, they are patriots all, and I’d rather have them here than a bunch of “anything goes” leftists.

  • K-Bob

    Laurel A  
    You should see some of the Civil War arguments still alive on the web.  Talk about moot!

  • Laurel A

    K-Bob Laurel A HAHAHAHAHA! I never knew there was! I guess I’m going to have to check that out….entertainment purposes only!

  • K-Bob

    pushtheredbutton I don’t think Scoop intended “respect” toward Mark would mean you can’t disagree sharply, and even with disdain.  What is truly silly is claims made that he’s “misinformed” or somehow doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  And even then, Scoop’s point was that unless you’ve devoted as many years of your life to the intense scholarship of the Founding as Mark, you cannot be taken seriously when claiming those sorts of things.
    But you don’t have to wear kid gloves when criticizing him.  Just follow the Comment Policy.

  • K-Bob

    Laurel A K-Bob Just look up “War of Northern Aggression”

  • The Sentinel

    K-Bob The Sentinel  
    :)

  • The Sentinel

    sDee The Sentinel  
    :)

  • Laurel A

    K-Bob Laurel A OK! Thanks. reminds me of my Virginia friends. That’s how they refer to the civil War.

  • pushtheredbutton

    K-Bob Therefore it follows that Mark should speak on the issue as somene who indeed has spent his life devoted to such sophisticated levels of learning and not by denigrating opposing voices with playground taunts and 3rd grade name-calling as he does in his little rave above. Till he does so, he should not expect any respect or acknowledgement from conservatives with an opposing view. And nobody has the right to pretend otrewise either.

  • ajtelles

    Why come, or It’s curious, isn’t it…
    – – – – – – – – –

    Why do we go round and round and round and… round?
    Well, it seems that some want to adhere to ‘original intent’ and some do not.
    After the facts are adduced, why do some not agree?
    – – – – – – – – –

    Oh, I know.
    When Mark Levin says that after further analysis, he has come to understand that the original intent of the original birthers was not only prescient, they were also seminal AND perpetual, then we will stop going round and round and round and… round, right?
    – – – – – – – – – –

    Thanks to the prescience of John Jay. who wrote a note to George Washington recommending the insertion of the words ‘natural born Citizen,’ an obvious 1787  reference to being born on U.S. soil, NOT foreign soil, and also with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents, into the U.S. Constitution at Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, we would not know today that a 1787 Clause 5 ‘…or a Citizen’ was a reference to independence patriots who were born, the key word is ‘BORN,’  on American soil before July 4, 1776 and a Clause 5 ‘…or a Citizen’ was eligible to be President ONLY until the LAST Clause 5 ‘…or a Citizen’ died sometime in the 1800s.
    Since the last Clause 5 ‘…or a Citizen’ died in the1800s, ONLY a Clause 5 ‘natural born Citizen’ who was born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents is ‘…eligible to the Office of the President,’ right?
    If that is NOT accurate, what is?
    Articulate it… with specific ‘original words’ and specific Articles, Acts, SCOTUS opinions that are ABOUT the law.
    – – – – – – – – – –

    Since some persist and insist on saying that our excellent Texas Senator Ted Cruz IS eligible to be president even though he is only a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘Citizen’ who was born on foreign soil with one ‘alien’ parent and one U.S. ‘citizen’ parent and is NOT a 1787 Clause 5 ‘natural born Citizen,’ THAT is why we go round and round and round and… round.

    We constitutionalists present the FACTS and others present their preferences and opinions about the prescient, seminal AND perpetual words ‘natural born Citizen.
    Other than that, there’s no reason to go round and round and round and… round, right?
     The FACTS… only the FACTS, right?

    Art

  • K-Bob

    pushtheredbutton K-Bob  
    You are expecting Mark to suddenly drop the schtick? Ain’t gonna happen.
    But the lack of respect shown for Levin’s scholarship is not his problem, (nor Scoop’s).  It’s a definite problem for those who plan on criticizing Levin. Or anyone else.

    On the world of music forums, there is always some clown trying to insult his way upward by claiming that “so and so isn’t really a very good player.” You’ve probably seen someone do that. (“Hendrix? pfff. Couldn’t play his way out of a paper bag!”)  And what ALWAYS happens to that person?  They become an object of derision and abuse.  A total laughingstock.  That’s what critics risk when deciding to dismiss the object of their criticism’s qualifications.  It’s just more obvious in a sports or music forum.

    It’s why Scoop wrote exactly what he wrote: “I quit reading after that.”
    That’s what happens to such critics.  And it’s not a problem for anyone but the critic himself.
    Now tacking a man’s arguments head on, and countering them with scholarship of your own is another thing entirely.  And it can be done without kid gloves, as I stated.

  • pushtheredbutton

    K-Bob pushtheredbutton But Mark’s ‘Schtik’ as you call it is exactly what he is receiving back when people like warpmime say he cant be trusted on the issue. Just like he boxes everyone who disagrees with him into the mom’s basement category (deliberately ignoring that some are like Dr Jerome Corsi with degree level quals from Harvard) we are also allowed to denigrate him or his so-called qualifications. Don’t dish out what you can’t take. Simple. 
    And besides, I didn’t read warp’s comment as denigrating Levin’s qualifications at all. I think a lot of people like myself might read it and just think he means Levin’s blinkered on the issue, or that he has a bias on the matter.  Now who can say bias and underlying prejudice is something the highly educated/qualified cannot fall prey to? I myself think Scoop jumped the gun on that accusation.

  • jdbaird

    CaseyGeorge jdbaird I think they just knew what it meant at the time to be a natural born citizen and for them to put the definition into the text would have been redundant. Just like it would’ve been redundant for them to put whether the second amendment was an individual right or not, it was just accepted as an individual right with no clarification needed.

  • jdbaird

    sDee jdbaird I think it’s a quick way to cut through the rhetoric. You can debate and define and rationalize all you want but the minute someone says “Yes, I believe that’s what the founders intended, for a person born in Canada to be president” they realize how foolish they sound and how ridiculous of a notion it is.

  • Laurel A

    dmacleo You do understand that the writings of the Constitution and the process set up and put in place by FF’s was one of subsequent rulings. We have subsequent rulings because the FF’s put that system for those rulings in place.

    Your analogy is like saying that stop sign wasn’t there when I bought the house so that stop sign doesn’t apply to me therefore I refuse to stop at it.

  • Laurel A

    poptoy1949 What cases has Jerome Corsi argued before the courts? Please list.

  • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/index dmacleo

    Laurel A dmacleo when the subsequent rulings bastardize the original intent theres a problem. 
    thats how anti-gun people work.
    not me. and I have done this long before obama came onto the scene.

    anyone that does not like it can deal with it. its a term only mentioned for two jobs in the whole country. It had actual meaning before we dropped the baby anchors into the COTUS.

    I don’t toss my principles away for political expediency.
    and thats all I will say on this, I am tired of all the BS over it and am not going to deal with the insults (not that you were) that always come from this.
    I am sure someone will call me names, don’t care. people not liking it can kiss off.

  • jdbaird

    Keyes Malkiel_kol_hakavodlael poptoy1949 Well, there was a news story I heard a few weeks ago about how the NSA had been collecting phone records in D.C. for like 3 years even though, oops, they were supposed to be collecting them in Egypt. The excuse was something about how they “accidentally” added one number to the area code (20, 202). Not hard to imagine why they would be doing that, picking up plenty of dirt to use in the future.

  • Laurel A

    dmacleo Laurel A But you are tossing away principles of the original intent for political expediency. Sorry but the FF’s put into place a system of checks, balances, subsequent laws, and rulings on those laws. Hence the reason we have things like ‘Naturalization Act of 1790′ etc. Those subsequent laws were written and implemented within the confines of the structure the FF’s laid out. There was never any intent by any FF that the laws would never be expanded, amended, or even repealed. They never ever said “:these are the laws we laid out don’t ever add or subtract from them!” Quite the contrary as a matter of fact.

     I didn’t insult you but your subsequent tantrum telling people to ‘kiss off’ makes you guilty of what you accuse. I understand your frustration though. I hope no one calls you anything but stubborn. ;)

  • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/index dmacleo

    Laurel A dmacleo I know you didn’t, which is why I specifically said you didn’t.

  • kssturgis62

    Mark Levin – 
    Here it comes Mr. Producer, Here it comes : You know that guy Ted Cruz – He is an AMERICAN CITIZEN 
    he is a NATURALIZED CITIZEN. 
    Wow there you have it, a Naturalized Citizen – Not Natural Born, a Naturalized one. One person Who needed a Law to be an American Citizen. 
    Saddest thing I ever heard. Of course we are going back to McCain, who congress gave a pass to, to make him qualified, is how we got obama. 
    I am so glad to hear all ILLEGALS are now NBC, anyone who comes here and is born here no matter who their parents are are all NBC, anyone who is born in any country as long as they have ONE PARENT who is an AMERICAN is now Natural Born. WE just Changed the Whole Meaning of the Constitution and the Natural Born Clause to the Constitution. 
    I am so disappointed, so very disappointed. Ted Cruz when asked stated many times in his own words I AM A CITIZEN AT BIRTH – NEVER ONCE DID HE SAY I AM A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. 
    George Romney Dropped out of the Run for Presidency because of him being born in Mexico.

  • CalCoolidge

    K-Bob Laurel A No infamy ever dies.  There is always some liberal to make a uneducated analogy linking historical crimes against humanity to today’s Conservatives, Republicans or Right.
    Can’t you see the parallel?   The philosophy of limited government is the same as the one that wanted all-powerful government that could make its citizens slaves.  The Tea Party is the KKK.

  • CalCoolidge

    Levin’s theory surely simplifies the issue.  Born in another country?  Parents not US Citizens?  No problem.  Everyone is natural born.  Agamemnon for President!  Yay!

  • CalCoolidge

    linguaphonica In Con Law, they don’t teach the Constitution.  They teach opinions.  They teach what courts have said the Constitution says. 
    I just had to explain this to a co-worker.  He’s a rookie lawyer, and he asked – how is it I just got an A in Con Law and you know the Constitution so much better than I.

  • sDee

    linguaphonica My son took Constitutional law in Law school. They never studied it. Just case law.

  • CalCoolidge

    K-Bob pushtheredbutton 
    He might recognize that he sounds like everyone else when dealing with an argument from his right.  He wants everyone over there to just shut up.

  • CalCoolidge

    K-Bob ajtelles Hasn’t the amendment already come along?  The Fourteenth says a citizen is either born in the US or naturalized.  Was Ted Cruz born in the US?
    If not, then what other part of the Constitution am I overlooking that says a citizen is someone born in  Canada?
    You can try to repeat Levin’s words, and think you have a bullet-proof argument, but the reality is there are several variables he is ignoring.  Like the Constitution says born the US, not born in Canada. 
    Having to complain that an argument is going round and round is an inevitable feature of making an argument that ignores critical variables.  That is, don’t dispense with an issue (in this case the text of the Constitution itself), and it keep coming back around.

  • DebbyX

    I always thought that natural born citizen meant that BOTH parents also had to be born in this Country.  You grow up in a home where one parent has an allegiance to another Country, that’s what you learn. 
    Maybe I’m an American or maybe I’m Mexican.  If I ruled the world, both parents would have to have been born in this Country.

  • JPTravis1

    Sigh.  This is so disappointing, Mr. Levin.  Another hero swallows his honor and spouts nonsense because it is politically expedient.  “Natural born citizen” had a meaning when the Constitution was written and that meaning did not include children born outside the U.S. to a parent who is not a U.S. citizen.  Those would be the very people the framers were worried about having divided loyalties.  Who does Obama identify with?  His father’s people or the United States?  We don’t really know and that’s why this is an important issue, far too important for the supercilious snarky non-explanation Levin provided.  Just because he likes Ted Cruze is no reason to abandon principle and violate the Constitution.  That’s what the other side does.

  • JPTravis1

    Laurel A dmacleo “Subsequent rulings?”  What subsequent rulings?  There has been no definitive ruling on the eligibility of Obama, for instance – merely statements that we the people have no standing in our own courts.

  • JPTravis1

    linguaphonica Yes, it’s taught – by people like Barack Obama.  ‘Nuf said.

  • JPTravis1

    pushtheredbutton Hear, hear!  I have lost respect for Mr. Levin also.  His tone was insulting and his logic was intentionally misleading.

  • ajtelles

    Wow…
    For those who think that some of the comments about and directed to Mark Levin on TheRightScoop are abusive, TRS is downright friendly compared to other sites, such as BirtherReport.com.
    Mark Levin Goes Off The Deep End: Declares
    Ted Cruz Naturalized Citizen And Eligible To Be POTUS

    Mark Levin Showed All The Traits 
    of a Scoundrel on His Radio Show Thursday CDR (Ret.)
    – See more at:
    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/mark-levin-calls-cruz-naturalized-citizen.html#sthash.btvezh06.dpuf 
    – – – – – – – – –
    Oh well, Mark can handle the abuse, whether it’s from the GOPe progressives or the ‘call-to-arms’ constitutionalist Minute Men.
    Some of the ridicule is directed at Mark’s newest book, The Liberty Amendments, as not being topical and consequential because Mark ridicules what he calls the ‘birthers’ when he defends Sen. Cruz against those who say that Sen. Cruz is not Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 ‘…eligible to the Office of the President.’
    However, I don’t take it personally because I listen to Mark each day on his site using his audio stream.
    – – – – – – – – – –

    By listening every day, I understand that, as Mark said recently, he has not kept up with the ‘natural born Citizen’ issue, and , while he did not say so, he could have said that he has been, uh, you know, very busy writing an EXCELLENT primer for future generations of constitutionalists, as Rush Limbaugh said in an email to him today, August 30, 2013, who are not familiar with the original intent of the original birthers who wrote the original words of the original birther document of America, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and ‘natural born Citizen.’
    Knowing Mark from listening to him and reading his excellent and topical books, I expect that eventually Mark will see the prescience of the original birthers in requiring ONLY ‘natural born Citizen’ to be eligible with the understanding that ‘natural born Citizen’ means ONLY born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents.
    When that happens Mark, being an honest conservative constititutionalist who wrote The Liberty Amendments because he truly does want to restore the American Republic, Mark will say that the original intent of the original birthers was not only precient, but the original intent about ‘natural born Citizen’ was ALSO seminal AND perpetual.

    Art

  • daddynoz

    Levin means well, but he has not researched the matter properly. The Cato Brief he refers to is fundamentally flawed.

    How is that the
    2009 CRS Memo on Presidential Eligibility does not once mention the only
    time the USSC defined a plaintiff’s rights solely on Art II
    presidential eligibility? Weird. One would think there might have been
    an agenda…

    “The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of
    the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States
    and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding
    the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine
    the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case
    upon other grounds,”
    “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
    parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the
    first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these
    doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all
    children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves
    citizens.”
    Wierd, the court opted to decide political rights on Art II “natural born citizen” rather than the 14th plea.
    Minor v Happersett. Not mentioned once in the CRS memo.

  • Orangeone

    DebbyX What would you say to children of rape? Would they not be eligible to be potus because of the criminal act?

  • JulieJonesMelancon

    ajtelles I do hope you are right!

  • TheBeaver

    You are absolutely right about the media Casey, every conservative will face their trashy editorials and put downs. It’s just that this is one controversy that will never go away and the only topic that will follow his campaign . Palin was fantastic But unfortunately unelectable because of the way the criminal main stream media and hollywood overwhelmed the airwaves with their false spin.
    I hope you are right, and this time beat them at their own game despite the socialist media .

  • ajtelles

    JulieJonesMelancon ajtelles  
    Dittos…
    Double dittos…
    Triple dittos….
    Art

  • K-Bob

    CalCoolidge K-Bob Laurel A  
    Yep. No calumny is too great for a leftist.

  • FlyFace

    Mark Levin…Dazed & Confused!

  • baoyi

    tinyurl.com/kk6tldj

  • WillJamesWynne

    ajtelles 
    The Founders would rightly disagree with you, Levin and ALL who espouse erroneous definitions of the “natural born Citizen.” Said nbC status can ONLY be conferred upon the children of citizen fathers. Citizenship of mothers and place of birth are IRRELEVANT!

  • WillJamesWynne

    The “natural born Citizen”
    In
    order to know the definition of “natural born Citizen,” one can only know it by
    looking back to the Founding Fathers.

    In
    the opening paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, they make specific reference
    to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

    In
    paragraph two, they build on that reference with this affirmation of God given
    “natural” rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
    all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
    unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
    Happiness.”

    Clearly,
    the Founders saw natural born Citizenship as something defined by the
    “Laws of Nature” and NOT by ANY man made law. So what is the source they
    saw as authoritative in defining a natural born Citizen? The work known as The
    Law of Nations, by Emerich de Vattel.

    Article
    I, Section VIII, Clause X of the US Constitution states, “To define and
    punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against
    the Law of Nations.”

    The Founders citation of this work in
    our Constitution meant that upon it’s ratification, The Law of Nations became the authoritative source
    for defining “Offences against the Law of Nations.”

    Book
    One, Chapter 19, Section 212. Citizens
    and natives.
    “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. 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.”
    Section 215.
    Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
    It is asked
    whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The
    laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations
    must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition
    of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth
    produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any
    reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,”
    for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But
    I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to
    settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become
    a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his
    children will be members of it also.

    Vattel
    makes it crystal clear that “natural
    born Citizen” status is determined solely by the citizenship of the fathers.
    Place of birth and citizenship of the mothers are IRRELEVANT!

    Therefore,
    the Founders would have rightly declared Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
    II ineligible because his father was British subject when he was born. Kenya
    did not gain independence from British rule until late in 1964.

    They
    would also rightly declare Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz ineligible.
    Jindal because his father was a citizen of India at the time of his birth, and Rubio
    and Cruz because their fathers were citizens of Cuba when they were born.

    Not only did the Founders adhere to Vattel’snatural law definition of what they termed “natural
    born Citizen,” they used the Law of Nations extensively.

    Another
    good source of information on the “natural born Citizen” is at the website of this
    Natural Law Scholar and Constitutional Analyst,
     In conclusion, all of
    the erroneous definitions must be abandoned, and the true definition accepted and
    enforced. It is the only definition the Founders accepted. We must follow their
    lead!

    The only way We The People stop the unconstitutional
    precedent first set by Chester Alan Arthur and followed by the Barry Soetoro
    aka Barack Hussein Obama, and make null and void EVERYTHING he has done, is for
    all of us to get on the same page regarding this most critical issue. Failure
    to do so will inevitably result in others who are Constitutionally ineligible
    to be POTUS or VP being placed on the ballot.

  • K-Bob

    This page is starting to look like some of the pages at freerepublic.  I need to remind folks that long-form cut-and-paste is against the http://www.therightscoop.com/the-right-scoop-commenting-rules/.  Besides which we do have freerepublic for that, after all, as well as many fine sites dedicated to this issue.  This is more of a video clip site, and Scoop prefers brevity.  It’s been a successful formula so far, so we can assume he still means it.
    A good idea is to link to source material with a short comment letting people know what’s at the link.
    A bad idea is putting up the same stuff everyone has already mentioned.  That makes it look like we’re just a bunch of yahoos here to spout off, and not pay attention to anything written by someone else.
    This isn’t directed at any of you in particular, it’s just the way the site works.  Feel free to link your own blog in a discussion, too.
    We had someone here the other day that never bothered to put any working links in his posts, yet kept referring to his site.  So check your links.  LiveFyre is notorious for making something look like a link, but if it didn’t “take,” clicking it only takes you right back here.
    Also, I can fix links for you if you can’t edit your comment any more.

  • K-Bob

    JPTravis1  
    This is the kind of comment that goes nowhere in this debate.  When you wade in and declare that someone like Levin is “spouting nonsense” and also impugn his honor, you’ve lost any credibility.

  • Keyes

    K-Bob JPTravis1 
    Levin impugns peoples honor when he yells at them in regards to this issue. He is not above criticism.

  • Keyes

    Orangeone DebbyX 
    Not if the criminal was a foreigner.
    A person’s personal ambition (to be president) cannot outweigh the safety of the American people and the sovereignty of this great nation.

  • Orangeone

    Keyes Orangeone DebbyX Most rapes are unsolved. That would punish the child and strip them of their rights.  I can’t go along with that. Plus think of children that have been adopted decades back where records were not best kept.  If they do not know of the sperm donor, they cannot have loyalty to another country.

  • Keyes

    ajtelles 
    You are correct.
    One poster said we are having this discussion because there are different definitions out there. Um…no….we are having this discussion because people THINK there are different definitions out there.
    Passing immigration laws over the years will NEVER change the definition of Natural Born. It will NEVER change the fact that the president MUST have natural born status.

  • Keyes

    Laurel A 
    The requirement of the president is a moot point?
    If we put in a usurper we can never nullify what Obama has done.

  • Keyes

    K-Bob Laurel A 
    That always gets me.
    I recently read a history book published 30 years after the war ended.
    Of course we all know SC fired the FIRST shots on Ft. Sumter, but what I didn’t know was a few months later the South INVADED KENTUCKY in TWO places…..thereby convincing KY to side with North.
    I’d say it was the War of Southern aggression.

  • Keyes

    CalCoolidge K-Bob Laurel A 
    I have found it’s mostly libertarians….Ron Paul supporters making this claim. I have also met southern Republicans making this claim.

  • JPTravis1

    K-Bob JPTravis1 Since he started his diatribe by declaring Cruz a “naturalized” citizen when he meant “natural born citizen,” the accusation of nonsense is valid.  As for the notion that Levin cannot have his honor impugned… why not?  Is he a saint?  Is he an entity you worship?  He was throwing insults and impugning honor left and right himself (or Himself), so maybe you should ask yourself whether you are a moderator who encourages discussion or a moderator who stifles it.  Frankly, I’ve never met one of the latter.

  • Keyes

    Laurel A dmacleo 
    Our Founders never intended for the original intent to be tossed out.
    Jefferson even commented that judges would change the Constitution to suit their fancy and it would become like a thing of wax …or something along those lines.
    They never intended for the courts to decide the definitions of words in the Constitution.
    Everyone knew what natural born meant back then and they never dreamed they would need to put a definition of it in the Constitution itself.
    It’s like “pizza” today. If you wrote something about “pizza” you would not explain what “pizza” meant because you know everyone knows what pizza means.

  • Keyes

    JPTravis1 Laurel A dmacleo 
    Isn’t that an outrage? EVERY US citizen has standing in regards to our Commander in Chief!!! He works for us!

  • Keyes

    sDee linguaphonica 
    ….BAM!….

  • Keyes

    JPTravis1 linguaphonica 
    LOL.

  • Keyes

    sDee 
    What he should say is, “It is clear I do NOT meet the requirement of “Natural Born” and therefore can never be president. The Constitution and the best interests of the American people trumps my or any person’s personal ambition.”

  • Keyes

    CaseyGeorge jdbaird 
    Everyone KNEW what natural born meant back then. They never dreamed they would need to put the definition into the document itself. They never dreamed we would become so dumbed down on our history and founding documents.

  • Keyes

    jdbaird sDee 
    I tell people that IF Obama Sr. is O’s real father, O had dual citizenship with Great Britain. Do you believe our Founders would have wanted a president with dual citizenship with Great Britain…..the country we fought the Revolutionary War with in the first place?

  • Keyes

    CaseyGeorge TheBeaver 
    For me with Paul it’s the fact he supports mass amnesty and refers to illegals as “undocumented citizens”!!

  • Keyes

    TheBeaver 
    Palin is totally electable.
    The problem the last go round was she was muzzled by the McCain campaign.
    Running at the top of the ticket, she would be free to speak her mind and defend herself.
    Remember, they say Reagan was unelectable too.
    Whomever the Left says is unelectable…is the one they fear the most because they KNOW they ARE electable.

  • Keyes

    pushtheredbutton 
    Well stated.

  • Keyes

    pushtheredbutton 
    Precisely. Mark gets very nasty with people he disagrees with.

  • Keyes

    CalCoolidge K-Bob ajtelles 
    The 14th amendment had NOTHING to do with the natural born requirement. No where does that amendment say the requirement for natural born has been rescinded.
    The 14th amendment was about one thing….giving citizenship to the newly freed slaves.

  • Keyes

    Orangeone Keyes DebbyX 
    If it is KNOWN the father was a foreigner.
    I was not aware that the office of the presidency was a right. I thought it was a privilege.
    Again, a person’s personal ambition should not trump the safety of the American people. I don’t care if that’s not fair. That is the doctrine of the left.

  • Laurel A

    Keyes Laurel A dmacleo That is your opinion nothing more.

  • Laurel A

    JPTravis1 Laurel A dmacleo I think you need to re-read that again and take special note of the context.

  • Laurel A

    Keyes Laurel A You are never ever going to nullify Obama. Not now not ever. You cannot unwind the hands of time and you cannot unring a bell.

    Accept it.

  • DebbyX

    Orangeone DebbyX If the child is born the States, then I would say that child is a US citizen.  Ship the dirt bag rapist back to the hole he came from……………..after 99 years in prison. I don’t want my tax money paying to bury his sorry A.  His existence in this Country doesn’t count for anything……….he’s illegal.  So the mom and child are fine by me.

  • Orangeone

    Keyes Orangeone DebbyX Just because the left uses the “fair” argument for everything doesn’t mean it is always wrong.  US citizens have the right to run for office, including potus, if the requirements are met.  Telling a person they have lost that right because they cannot prove their biological father, the rapist, was a US citizen at the time of the rape is not appropriate and I do not believe the intent of the forefathers.

  • K-Bob

    Keyes K-Bob JPTravis1  
    So?  That has nothing to do with my comment.

  • K-Bob

    JPTravis1 K-Bob  
    You have a serious problem with projection here.
    I made a point and you’re doing the tpical, “moderator stifling debate” thing.
    This always ends exactly the same way.  Why not buck the trend and debate what I wrote instead of inventing words as if they were mine?
    You impugn a man’s honor all you want.  All that means is very few people can possibly take you seriously. That’s not our problem, it’s yours.
    Going for the “worship” attack is very leftist, by the way.  People accuse anyone who dares to defend Palin, now Cruz, or any other serious Conservative, of “worship.”  Happens all the time.

  • WillJamesWynne

    ajtelles  
    See the Law of Nations, Book I, chapter 19, sections 212 and 215.
    “natural born Citizen” = children born to citizen fathers. Citizenship of mother and place of birth are irrelevant.

  • WillJamesWynne

    Keyes Laurel A dmacleo
    Natural law can NEVER be abrogated by man-made law.
    The FF did not define nbC in the Constitution because they assumed subsequent generations would look to the Law of Nations, which they cited in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, for said definition.
    See Book I, Chapter 19, sections 212 and 215.

  • JPTravis1

    K-Bob JPTravis1 Sounds like I struck a nerve.  As for debating what you wrote, I did.  Specifically.  You didn’t.  You completely ignored both points I made to regurgitate gratuitous insults.  You make a perfect moderator by the way and I bet you’re hot stuff on the condo association, too.  No need to respond.  Clearly you don’t intend to discuss anything seriously so I’m done.

  • K-Bob

    JPTravis1 K-Bob 
    Yep. Always ends the same way. Douchebag comes in. Blames Mod for “stifling” debate because douchebag can’t read the thread to see the actual debate going on. 
    Predictable.  Go find a site you can pretend to dominate. You’re done here.

  • Michael Ferguson

    It was difficult to get through all the comments containing so many personal insults. Big problem with social-media is it isn’t very sociable.

    Article II, Section 1 wording in the Constitution remains the same today as originally adopted/ratified. The Library of Congress contains Farrand’s records (Robert Farrand was a Constitutional Convention scribe) of the debate around Article II. Original proposed wording was that the office of President required a “citizen of one of the several states.” Also in the Library of Congress is a letter written by John Jay (who eventually became first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court) to George Washington (who was a delegate to the Convention) proposing the requirement be “natural-born citizen.” The founders/framers understood the distinction.

    The US Supreme Court cited The Law of Nations at least four times from its inception through 1875 when it issued the ruling in Minor v. Happersett, in which the court cited the definition of natural-born citizen from The Law of Nations pretty much verbatim. It requires birth in the country to parents who were citizens (plural) at the time of birth.

    The debates around the 14th Amendment (Congressional Record) are full of statements that confirm the definition from The Law of Nations

    Current day legislators obviously also understand the distinction between “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” as they attempted eight times in a twenty-two month period through February, 2008 to either change the requirement to “citizen” or remove it.

    Obama is not the first to be sworn in illegally. Chester Arthur was after Garfield was assassinated. Since the 12th Amendment sets the same requirements for VP as President, Arthur was illegally sworn in as VP. Records indicate that Arthur had his family birth records destroyed.

    From my understanding of the records, Cruz is not eligible, nor Rubio, nor Jindal.

    • Hugh Hudson

      Michael, I completely agree!

      • Paul Wade

        I agree also. If a child born in the USA is a natural born citizen, that means every child born to a mother who was an illegal alien is a natural born citizen.

        That means that mother can take their child back to their home nation and that child can come back to the USA when they reach the age of 20 years and live in the USA for the next 15 years to become president of the [good] ol’ USA.

  • Hugh Hudson

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, and that was repealed in 1802.
    Mark Levin is doing much harm. His “practical considerations” argument is completely bogus.

  • Ralph Trout

    hahaha…it’s been my experience that anyone who tries to make a case that Cruz is not eligible also just happens to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. So how many here fit in that category.