VERDICT IS IN: CNN says Ted Cruz eligible to run for president

CNN did an investigation into whether Ted Cruz is eligible to be President and they found that he is indeed eligible:

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.
  • MarieCowsert1

    If true……..OH YEA!!!!!!!!!!!

  • vorlath

    This is preventative on the part of liberals. They don’t want a birther movement on the liberal side. Besides, they want to loosen restrictions on who can become President. On a side-note, it’d be very strange for a country to have a law where someone who’s been a citizen from the time of his/her birth cannot run for President. What would such a law accomplish? What is the purpose. In law, the purpose is always key. If it serves no purpose, then the courts will be very unlikely to enforce some weird reading of it.

  • marketcomp

    Yeah, they scared! Coming from the CNN (Clinton News Network) who is producing a documentary about Hillary Clinton. Boo!

  • rjcylon

    Excellent, Palin and Cruz are both eligible, let’s have them team up. 16 years.

  • Keyes

    vorlath 
    The purpose of the natural born clause was our Founders wanted no dual loyalties.

  • Keyes

    I would be very wary of anything CNN has to say.

  • Keyes

    Oh my gosh, this just proves he is NOT eligible. CNN is saying he’s eligible because they don’t want us to go after Obama.
    EVERYONE knew what natural born meant when the Constitution was written.

  • DarkKnight2016

    Keyes They are just pointing out what conservatives have been saying. We have always known that Cruz is eligible.

  • Keyes

    DarkKnight2016 Keyes 
    You are most definitely a dem pretending to be a conservative.

  • DarkKnight2016

    Keyes DarkKnight2016 Nope.

  • subie201

    Hey before any one questions Ted Cruz as president, let’s see Obama’s documents. What’s good for the goose….

  • subie201

    Hasn’t any one heard…it seems CNN is moving a little towards the right. They are realizing that FOX has highest ratings. MSLSD, and other networks are dying big time! CNN needs a lifeline!

  • ajtelles

    Athena said…
    “… the constitution doesn’t define ‘who’ is a natural born citizen, …
    “… also, I should add, the Supreme Court has ‘never’ ruled on this issue.”
    – – – – – – – – – –
    Art said…
    Yes, the constitution DOES define ‘who’ is a ‘natural born Citizen.’
    Consider this:
    Let’s
    itemize Clause 5 for analysis:
    Part 1a –
    No
    Person
    except
    a natural born Citizen,
    Part 1b –
    or a Citizen of the United States,
    at the time of the Adoption
    of this
    Constitution,
    shall
    be eligible
    to the Office of the President;
    Part 2a –
    neither
    shall any Person be eligible to that Office
    who
    shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,
    Part 2b –
    and
    been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
    Do
    you see the Clause 5 ‘original intent’ yet?
    It
    may not be obvious, so let’s analyze Clause 5 with ‘original intent’ common
    sense, ok?
    Part 1a Analysis
    Article
    2 Section 1 Clause 5 Part
    1a includes the soil
    FIRST
    in ‘natural born’ BECAUSE, to protect the Union and prevent
    foreign influence, birth obviously
    has to take place somewhere ONU.S.
    soil, right?
    Right?
    [x] Yes
    [] No
    Yeah, that’s where soil is included, ‘natural born.’
    It is implicit, but ‘original intent’ common
    sense definitely demands inclusion of the location of the soil as the place of the birth of a ‘natural born Citizen,’
    right?
    Right?
    [x] Yes
    [] No
    So, what is the obvious ‘original intent’ common
    sense of Part 1a?
    Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 Part
    1a means that the soil of birth is AS important as birth on soil BECAUSE the birth has to happen ONLY ON the soil of the United States that was there BEFORE
    the birth took place ON
    the soil, right?
    Right?
    [x] Yes
    [] No
    Well,
    Art, when you put it that way… 
     _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Art

     OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

  • CalCoolidge

    They are just providing cover for Obama.

  • CalCoolidge

    subie201 Maybe they should give Wiener a show.  They gave Spitzer one.

  • ajtelles

    Keyes 
    Dittos, Keyes…
    Both John Jay and Alexander Hamilton expressed
    their intent about foreign influence in the administration of the government.
    Concern about foreign influence invading the executive
    branch of the tripartite federal government, with one person as the chief
    executive who alone had the constitutional authority over the entire U.S.
    State Department AND is the Commander in Chief of the entire military,
    prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to
    George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787:
    John Jay –
    “Permit
    me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a
    strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration
    of our national Government;
    and to
    declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American
    army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but anatural
    born Citizen.
    [‘born’ was underlined
    in the original] [emphasis added here]
    The
    Papers
    of John Jay is here:
    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/
    The above quote is found here:
    http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/search?mode=search&action=search&match=all&p=1&aut=john+jay&submit=Search&recip=george+washington&keywd=natural+born+citizen&rep=&jayid=&y1=&m1=&d1=&y2=&m2=&d2=&sort=date&resPerPage=25
    Alexander Hamilton –
    “Nothing
    was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed
    to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
    “These
    most deadly
    adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected
    to make
    their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the
    desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our
    councils.
    “How
    could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to
    the chief magistracy of the Union?”
    It
    was Washington, while presiding over the Constitutional Convention, who agreed
    with the written suggestion from future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John
    Jay that the office of the president should be reserved ONLY for a ‘natural
    born Citizen’ to perpetually prevent foreign influence
    in America’s government.
    That
    means BOTH men knew the ‘original intent’ meaning of ‘natural born Citizen,’
    right?
    Right?
    [x] Yes
    [] No- – – – – – – – – –

    Art

  • SurfinCowboy

    Duh. Of course he is. It is not how I would want the term “natural born” to be interpreted, but like Randy Barnett said, that is how it is looked at today under the law. Surprising how CNN is spending time on this silly issue. I can only hope the left continues its birther movement (it was the Hillary camp that started the birther issue with Obama) with Cruz.

  • K-Bob

    I’d wager most Conservatives would walk naked through East St. Louis and Detroit at night to vote for Ted Cruz in 2016.
    So the real question isn’t “is he eligible.”  The real question is: do any conservatives hate the United States and the Constitution enough to stay home if Cruz somehow wins the nomination?I’d say that would make it clear who really loves Liberty and who would rather win an argument.

  • ajtelles

    Hmmm…
    Who loves liberty?
    The person who does NOT want to engage with U.S. Constitution related ‘original intent’ sources such as Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 with the ‘natural born Citizen’ designation, and the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘Citizen’ designation which refers to children born on foreign soil with tow (2) U.S. Citizen married parents, and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘Citizen’ designation, which refers to being born on foreign soil and married to a foreign citizen when the child is born on foreign soil, like Sen. Cruz, who was born in 1970 in Calgary, Canada with a mother who was a U.S. Citizen?
    Or is it the person who does NOT want to engage with ‘original intent’ sources?
    Just askin’ ’cause the U.S. Constitution was written for a reason, right?
    Art

  • What is the country going to look like and will there be an election for president? Will there be a little civil war going on? Why would anyone waste there time to President of a country that values slavery to government rather than liberty? 
    The war would be preferable only because you (we) can get rid of the unfortunate dead beats and their leaders and put into place measures that will prevent this crap from happening again.
    Funny how Bill Ayers thought it might be necessary to kill 25 million in taking power. Just so happens that’s how many commiecrat/progressives there are. Projection once again??? You bet! We’ll see what happens. In my eyes, the first republic is dead because it’s citizenry allowed it to be slaughtered by ignoring her Constitution.

  • kong1967

    YES !!

  • vorlath

    ajtelles That’s just silly. You’re saying that someone can be a citizen from birth and not be eligible to be President. That’s more than moronic. What’s the intent of such a law? There isn’t any. No Court will uphold such a twisted view. The Constitution is meant to protect rights and limit government, not the other way around. You are bastardazing the Constitution.

  • DHardy

    CNN says so?….Really?…..As if anything they say is relevant  or true for that matter. Sorry but I need to hear it from a legal sources…

  • ryanomaniac

    I want the law obeyed. I’m not into double standards. If Ted Cruz father wasn’t a citizen when he is born then he wouldn’t be a natural born citizen right? Also he was born in another country. I want so bad that he meets the criteria because he is top notch. I would do everything in my power to help him be president but I will not justlook the other way if he doesn’t meet the criteria. That would just give democrats the opening they need.
    One of my own requirements is that the candidate not be a senator. They haven’t run squat. I want governors and businessmen but that is a personal requirement I would throw aside for this guy. I’ve always mocked Obama for having little experience being he only served two years in the senate. So has ted Cruz. I will happily be hypocritical on this also. Blah blah blah…its early and I’m rambling. Hope what I said made sense.

  • sDee

    At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of Natural
    Born Citizen was precisely defined and based on a millennium of
    immigration law. It required citizenship by jus sanguinis (blood of both
    citizen parents), and jus soli (born on sovereign soil). This wa established practice to minimize opportunity for usurpation of a country’s highest office.

    Obama
    has set precedent that the President need not be born to citizens
    parents (jus sanquinis)  If Cruz was not born on US soil, he is not a
    Natrual Born Citizen (jus soli)
    .If we let two presidents in a row
    set precedent that the President of the US needs neither to be born on
    US soil, nor born of US citizens, who I ask, cannot be installed as president?
    This is the globalists’ dream – to dismantle the sovereign Republic of the United States of America and install a global governor.

  • sDee

    ryanomaniac 
    Correct.
     Even Obama has aggressively defended his eligibility based on being born on US soil.
    I do believe Obama was born on US soil. However, we all know, and CNN knows, that if today it was disclosed that Obama was born in Kenya, he would be immediately removed from office. We all would support his removal, so how can we defend Cruz as eleigble when he was not born on US soil?

  • jcrichichi

    You are what your mother is. His mother is a US Citizen from Delaware so…

  • sDee

    If the gloabist State Media, CNN, is defending this, does it not cause anyone concerns?
    Pelosi and the media ran to John McCain’s defense too when it disclosed in 2008 that he was not born on US soil. Strike anyone as odd?Candidate McCain was placed on the ballot in 2008, of course a Citizen and eleigble for any office except president. He was not a Natural Born Citizen because he was not born on US soil.
    Candidate Obama was placed on the ballot in 2008, of course a Citizen, and eleigble for any office except president. He was not a Natural Born Citizen because he was not born of US parents.Candidate Calero was placed on the ballot in 2008, of course not  a Citizen, and
    not eleigble for any office. He was not a Natural Born
    Citizen because he was not born of US parents and was not born on US soil. He was a Nicaraguan here on a green card.

    Now we have Rubio thrust on the presidential scene who is not an NBC. And we have Cruz thrust on the presidential scene who is not an NBC.
    DOES ALL THIS STRIKE ANYONE AS MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE AT A TIME WHEN AMERICA IS UNDER FULL BLOWN ATTACK FORM WITHIN?

  • sDee

    jcrichichi   
    So if Vladimir Putin brought a New York city hooker over to Moscow, impregnated her and sent the son back to the US 35 years later, do you believe that son would be eleigble to be President?

  • DHardy

    sDee I agree 100%…We need to vote a person in office that is 100% qualified and Eligible beyond question…A person that has a REAL Tangible Investment in America. Family, Extended Family someone that will be hurting their own if they pull the garbage Obama has pulled..

  • sDee

    DHardy
    You just hit upon the head, the exact nail the Founders pounded in when they created the Natural Born Citizen clause.
    Usurpation.

  • sDee

    So if it was disclosed today that Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, do you believe he should remain in office?

  • wodiej

    His lack of experience makes him ineligible as far as I”m concerned.  He hasn’t been around long enough to determine if he is who he says he is.  Gov. Sarah Palin has.

  • wodiej

    K-Bob I wouldn’t.  He’s not experienced enough even if he is a legal citizen which I don’t think he is.

  • Longiron

    Yes he would a US citizen and would be eligible to be POTUS. Hold true even if Putin rapped her and a child was born!

  • sDee

    wodiej
    Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution says nothing about experience. Eligibility is defined uniquely for the office of President as:35 years of agelived on US soil for 14 years before running Natural Born Citizen defeind at the time to be: jus sanguinis (blood of both
    citizen parents), and jus soli (born on sovereign soil)

  • Longiron

    I guess our current POTUS was experienced. Wake up and smell the coffee.

  • wodiej

    Longiron good grief, so you want another inexperienced president? You need to wake up, not me.

  • wodiej

    sDee wodiej uhm, yeah I know the Constitution doesn’t say that.  But does it make sense? NO

  • sDee

    So any foreign power could run any manchurain they like.
    Once Amnesty is passed do you not realize that there will be enough votes to elect any foreign puppet the globalist choose?
    In 2008, a Nicaraguan named Roger Calero with only a green card was on the Presidential ballot. A little test case and no one removed him from it.

  • sDee

    wodiej sDee  
    It does not make sense if experience is not considered.  
    However I think America has lost sight of the essential purpose of having an eligibility clause for the office of President in the Constitution. It is there to stop usurpation of the highest, most dangerously powerful office in the nation.

  • sDee

    K-Bob  
    If would could get Cruz elected by ignoring the 2nd Amendment and temporarily turning in our guns, would we do it?
    The Constitution is our last firewall. There is nothing worth ignoring it.  Everytime we have we have lost our rights never to gain them back.

  • sDee

    Many comments about Cruz make me feel we are electing a King.  Americans no put far to much faith and hope in a single man. That is not a Repu lic. The office of President is supposed to be weak and administrative. We need to return power to Congress,  and via the Senate, to the States!
    It is in Congress where we need the courage and leadership of Ted Cruz – not as King of America.

  • pushtheredbutton

    sDee Notice how when its Obama, its definitely unconstitutional. but stick a ‘right-winger’ in his place and ‘hey, he has an american mother, must mean he’s natural born.’
    The left-right, Republican-Democrat, partisan paradigm is the worst thing ever to happen to American/Western political discourse. Clouds the judgment of even the most well-meaning folk.

  • pushtheredbutton

    CNN says it so it must be true. Praise be to Cruz, saviour of America and the world.

  • sDee

    Stat Media declares who is eleigble according to the US Constitution!
    THIS IS THE UGLY FACE OF GLOBALISM

    Only
    the People defend the Constitution and we have failed completely. We no
    longer  deserve the great nation we have been graced.
    The people
    of Great Britain ignored the requirements of sovereignty and  fell for
    this same globalist propaganda. They now have lost their citizenship,
    their sovereignty, to the EU.
    Read this and weep with sorrow because it is soon to be America if we do not stand and defend the Constitution.
    British Citizenship To Be Abolished – They Can’t Say They Weren’t Warned 
    http://cambriandissenters.blogspot.com/2013/08/british-citizenship-to-be-abolished.html

  • PatrickJColliano

    sDee A natural born citizen means and has always meant someone who gains citizenship at birth. Cruz was born in Canada to a mother who is a lifelong American citizen. That makes Cruz a natural born citizen.
    John McCain was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents, that makes him a natural born citizen.
    Barack Obama was born in the U.S. to an American mother and a foreign father. That makes him a natural born citizen.
    Bobby Jindal was born in the U.S. to two Indian parents. That makes him a natural born citizen.
    Marco Rubio was born in the U.S. to Cuban parents. That makes him a natural born citizen.

  • PatrickJColliano

    sDee the U.S. has NEVER required the citizenship of the parents to be considered a natural born citizen when born in the U.S. A child born in the U.S., even if both parents are aliens, is a natural born citizen.

  • PatrickJColliano

    ryanomaniac He does meet the criteria. A natural born citizen is anyone who has U.S. citizenship at birth.

  • pushtheredbutton

    PatrickJColliano sDee Right. And that is true because you said so on some blog somewhere? What are your judicial and extra-judicial sources of authority to back up your statement sir?

  • pushtheredbutton

    PatrickJColliano sDee Like i asked below: Where’s your authority on the matter? It isn’t so merely because you say it.

  • sDee

    PatrickJColliano sDee  
    So what you just said is that one neither needs to be born to US citizens, nor does one have to be born on US soil to be eleigble for the Office of President.
    What you have concluded  is that the only requirement to be eligible for  President is that ones mother be a citizen. Why then did the Founders just not say that in the Constitution?

    In fact your logic means that one is eleigble even if they were born in a foreign country  to a mother given Amnesty after  entering America illegally.
    In fact your logic then means tha an illegal immigrant, and his illegal immigrant mother could be granted Amnesty and the son be eleigble for president.
    The Founders knew well how Nations fell to usurpation. They gave us what we needed to defend America. We apparently are choosing to ignore it.

  • sDee

    PatrickJCollianoryanomaniac 
    Look up the definitions of these terms as based on immigration law at the time our Nation was founded.
    You have defined “Natrual Citizen” or more generally “Citizen”.
    Naturalized Citizen is the third category. Natural Born was precisely defiend at the time as jus sanguinis (blood of both
    citizen parents), and jus soli (born on sovereign soil). This was
    established practice to minimize opportunity for usurpation of a
    country’s highest office.

  • sDee

    pushtheredbutton sDee  
    And so called conservatives and constitutionalists fall for it every time. Or perhaps the are just part of the deception!

  • stage9

    Is this the same network that refused to investigate the eligibility of our current usurper in thief? The same network whose ratings are plummeting like a rock because it can’t manage its own network properly? The same network run by big government elitist liberals? liberals who endorse thieving, lying and murder?
    No thanks. I’ll get my information from more reliable sources like the National Enquirer or the New York Post before I ever get it from CNN.
    Liberalism, the philosophy of the propagandist.

  • sDee

    PatrickJCollianosDee 
    You then beleive that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could bring one of his pregnant wives to New York City during a UN vist. She pops out his son at a Manhattan hospital and they return home. His son comes back 21 years lateer and  is eleigble to run for President when he turns 35.
    Think about it!

  • stage9

    sDee This Congress has proven that they can’t handle that responsibility.

  • sDee

    stage9  Is it not the same network extensively discredited and mocked by The Right Scoop?

  • RickBulow

    sDee I believe that to be the case. Both PatrickJColliano and I had studied this issue and know for a fact it is the law

  • RickBulow

    sDee PatrickJColliano ryanomaniac The Constitution ONLY defines two types of citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized.

  • sDee

    RickBulow sDee PatrickJColliano  
    The law and lawyers have built up a 100 years of legal precedent to undermine the US Constitution. 
    What you have obvioulsy not studied is the INTENT of the Founders  Natural Born Citizen clause.
    What you beleive in is globalism and not the protections of  national soverignty.
    What you are is either ignorant of the Constitution and sovereignty, or you are quite knowledgeable and  a globalist intent on destroying America’s.

  • sDee

    RickBulow sDee PatrickJColliano ryanomaniac  
    The Constitution only uses the terms.
    Your legal and word  gymnastics remind me of the people who attempt to take away our Second Amendmetn rights by redining what  “militia” is.
    The intent  of the Natural Born Clause was clear when included. It was designed to keep out foreign anti-American usurpation like Hussein Obama – the son of a Kenyan anti colonialist and an American Communist, then  raised by an Indonesian islamist.
    You are part of the destruction of American sovereignty with your reasoning. Live in your traitorous self-deception if you like. I hope putting Cruz on the primary ballot is worth what comes when you  have removed all firewalls to global usurpation to the office of President.

  • sDee

    DHardy  
    Let’s hear it form the People. The only ones left in America willing to defend the Consitution.

  • RickBulow

    sDee RickBulow PatrickJColliano No. I believe in the Constitution, and NOWHERE is Natural Born Citizen defined. YOU ignore the LAW even when it is right in front of you.

  • RickBulow

    sDee RickBulow PatrickJColliano ryanomaniac  Dee, you are either ignorant of the law or just a nut job.

  • Army_Pilot1967

    Isn’t anyone eligible to run for president since obama was elected and re-elected?  Hasn’t he established the precedent?  Maybe someone can’t step off a ship or an airplane from some foreign country and run…..but obama probably wasn’t eligible to run for the Senate, much less for president…yet there he is, sitting in the White House fundamentally transforming the United States into a third-rate country.  The Left and the media certainly pulled one over on Uncle Sam.

  • PoCoTex

    It’s all very nice for us brilliant scholars here to analyse the eligibility of any particular person for the office of President, but who has the final say?
    1. The Supreme Court?
    2. Congress?
    3. The current President? 
    It’s certainly not CNN! They’re just trying to cover their behinds to ensure they don’t even remotely look like “birthers”.
    Had CNN said that Cruz was not eligible, then, all of a sudden, Obama’s eligibility immediately becomes suspect !

  • joyfulgiver

    wodiej our current president didn’t have any experience, either.  Remember, he was awol from most votes while a Senator from the “great state of Ill.” and he is currently still the campaigner in chief.

  • sDee

    PoCoTex  
    We the People have the final say. 
    It is our Constitution to limit their power, and our Bill of Rights to protect our sovereign power as citizens. Sadly we do not even realize that.

    The  problem is we we foolishly believe the The Supreme Court, Congress or Executive Branch will protect it. No! The people of America who demanded the Bill of Rights, knew that Government would eventually use granted powers to usurp our Governing Documents.  

    We have become foolish slaves of our masters.

  • sDee

    Army_Pilot1967  
    Yup. They pulled one over on us, and now we are letting the Republican Party  finish the job.

  • njmom

    I hope Ted runs in 2016 because I’d vote for him but its still 3 years away and there is much to do between now and then.

  • sDee

    RickBulow sDee PatrickJColliano  
    The Constituion does not defne the erms it usese. Their menaing beocmes clear forom intent.
    Like I said “militia” was not defined but its intent was crystal clear. 
    INTENT – without we will end up serving tyrants and their lawyers.

  • sDee

    njmom  
    He is an awesome prinicpled  leader in Congress. We need to take Congress back.  Our hope lies there,  not replacing a marxist King with a conservative King.
    We need to strip the power from the Executive Branch – Cruz can do much to that end as the leader of the Senate.

  • Army_Pilot1967

    I’ll bet the staff at CNN has dug and dug looking for something that would make Cruz ineligible to run for president.  Then they probably went back and dug some more.  Losers!!!

  • PatrickJColliano

    pushtheredbutton PatrickJColliano sDee The Supreme Court decision of United States v Wong Kim Ark confirms that a natural born citizen is anyone who acquires their citizenship at birth.

  • sDee

    Army_Pilot1967 
    CNN is global State Media. Global governance requires gutting America’s sovereignty which  requires destruction of the Constitution. The Constitution is undermined permanently through  though legal precedent – case law.

    CNN was key to covering up Obama’s ineligibility based on jus sanquinis. That gutted half of the NBC clause preventing foreign usurpation.
    CNN is now part of covering up Cruz’s ineligibility based on jus soli. That will gut the other half of the NBC clause preventing foreign usurpation.
    None of this is per chance.

  • sDee

    RickBulow sDee PatrickJColliano ryanomaniac 
     Ignorance can be corrected through knowledge.

    I know that Constitutional case law, the lawyers like Hussein Obama who argue it, and the judges who rule on it are not defenders of the Constitution.

  • Laurel A

    sDee njmom Nonsense. What make syou say he would be a conservative king?

    We don’t need a king and he isn’t one. He is a warrior which what this country and the world needs.

  • BetseyRoss

    sDee wodiej Right on, right on.  Yes indeedy.  CNN doesn’t know its a… from a hole in the ground.  The US Constitution states quite clearly who is eligible.  It ain’t Obama and it ain’ t Cruz.

  • PVG

    Oh please, oh please, oh please……………

  • ajtelles

    vorlath ajtelles 
    vorlath said…
    ‘That’s just silly … You are…’
    It is obvious that you are not very informed about the ‘original intent’ of the ‘original birthers’ who were the ‘original authors’ of the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 ‘natural born Citizen’ designation and distinguished that designation from ‘…or a Citizen…’ in the SAME Clause 5 in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘OR’ that was put there for a Constitutional stability reason.
    Your lack of ‘original intent’ source information is ok, for now, but after you check out the ‘original sources’ for yourself, maybe we can point vs. counterpoint in the future with substance without the ‘bastardazing (sic) the Constitution’ silliness.
    Art

  • Anyone is eligible now that Hawaii’s novelty birth certificates are accepted as proof of natural citizenship…

  • PatrickJColliano

    sDee PatrickJColliano No, that wouldn’t work. If a foreign head of state came to this country, he would NOT be “under the jurisdiction” of the U.S., consequently, his child would NOT be a citizen of the U.S.
    However, if someone did come to the U.S., someone who would NOT have diplomatic immunity, returned to the their country with their child, yes, that child WOULD be a natural born citizen…until the 21st birthday. At the age of 21, they would have to indicate to the U.S. that they wished to retain their U.S. citizenship. Usually, that would be expressed by RETURNING to the U.S. And if such a person did return to the U.S., at age 35, if the people elected him, he would become President of the United States.

  • PatrickJColliano

    sDee RickBulow PatrickJColliano The United States v. Wong Kim Ark makes it perfectly clear that ANYONE born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.  UNLESS that child is born to someone who is either 1) a foreign ambassador (who has diplomatic immunity and is NOT under the jurisdiction of the U.S.), or 2) someone who is part of a hostile invasion force, which is also not “under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
    Otherwise, anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, whether the child is born to aliens or not.

  • PatrickJColliano

    fatlester B.S. The Hawaiian short-form birth certificate is a self-authenticating document and is considered PRIMA FACIE proof in any court of law.

  • RickBulow

    BetseyRoss sDee wodiej Just. Stop. Lying

  • RickBulow

    sDee Just. Sto[p. lying.  PatrickJColliano knows what he is talking about.

  • K-Bob

    sDee K-Bob  
    Those are nice hypotheticals, but they are not relevant. The NBC clause is not about an unalienable right.
    The Constitution has been abrogated. This is NOT the time to fight over an interpretation regarding a detail that has NOTHING to do with unalienable rights,
    NOTHING to do with Individual Liberty,
    NOTHING to do with the principles under which a man would govern,
    NOTHING to do with his capacity to govern, and
    NOTHING to do with his respect for our Constitution

  • K-Bob

    sDee Doesn’t matter.
    He couldn’t be removed for that alone.  You’d still have the fact that his mother was born here and had not officially given up her citizenship.  (Although I heartily approve a process of rescinding citizenship from people who move overseas and denounce the US, whether they expressly sever or not.)
    The problem with barack is his serial fraud, not whether he’s a citizen, NBC or not.
    He’s committed fraud with the birth certificate, fraud over his education, fraud over his employment history, fraud over his paternity, fraud over his authorship of his stupid “autobiographies,” fraud over his so-called basketball and sports experience, and fraud over his support for marriage between a man and a woman.
    But the location of his birth would only be useful to those who could attain Standing in a court to challenge his NBC status.  No one will ever be granted such.

  • RickBulow

    sDee PatrickJColliano ryanomaniac YES they are. You and other birthers have no basis, no leg to stand on. Patrick and I have RESEARCHED this often and WE KNOW what we are talking about.

    BTW, you would not happen to be the Dee we trounced over at Tea Party Command Center, would you?

  • SheerPolitics

    sDee  Oh geez, I can’t believe I’m having to go through this again. NBC does NOT require you to have US parents and born on US soil. You merely have to be a US citizen AT BIRTH. This caveat was originally created by the founders to keep someone from coming over from the UK or elsewhere and setting up a kingdom when they were beholden to a foreign birthright. Cruz was a US citizen at birth. He was not a Canadian, otherwise he would have had to become a naturalized citizen in order to become a senator.

  • Stehekin912

    I would rather hear this from a Conservative organization.  IMHO, CNN is invested in having BamBam be legitimately eligible, so any conclusion CNN comes to, even if correct, is suspect.

  • K-Bob

    sDee jcrichichi  
    As long as the mother lived in the US for the minimum period before giving birth, then the kid would be able to get on a ballot, and you couldn’t stop it. You’d never get standing. (Although no Karl Rove types would ever sign on to such a non-starter of a candidate–and that still matters, a little.)

    More importantly though, if we hadn’t ALREADY GONE OVER THE CLIFF (he screamed), no one would ever vote for such a person because they would stand zero chance of winning a primary.  Not even on the Dem side.

    But we have gone over the cliff. This is a POST-Contitutional period in American History. Which is exactly why the NBC clause is not the hill to die on at this time. Restoration is what we must have, and anyone who stands in the way of Restoration needs to be rudely elbowed aside. If they fight against it they must be defeated.

    NBC is a detail.  A very nice detail, to be sure, but a detail nonetheless. It’s like selecting the right shade and color of brick for your house. You want to get it right, because you can’t change it. The NBC detail has no other purpose but to provide emphasis on the loyalty aspect of our leaders. Period.

    None of the NBC screamers can point to any other use for that clause.
    It wouldn’t end election fraud.  It wouldn’t help in a Bill of Rights court case. It wouldn’t cause people to suddenly rise up and support Liberty.  It’s entire purpose is to let future generations know that loyalty is highly important.
    And I really like that.
    But when it comes down to a chance for Restoration, anyone who derails it over that one clause is no friend of Liberty.

  • K-Bob

    sDee”So any foreign power could run any manchurain they like”
    Like the current President, yes. If people are that stupid, that’s what they get.

  • Booker

    Nobody cares about this. Birtherism is silly. Questioning the President’s hair brained ideology isn’t. 
    The Trump is bonkers. The Republican Party should stay away from this guy.

  • K-Bob

    pushtheredbutton sDee  
    That’s a non sequitur.  Most people on the right have never jumped on the birther bandwagon. That doesn’t mean we don’t care about his citizenship, but we do know he had a born American citizen mother.  So we refused to sign on to the “let’s try and disqualify the President!” agenda. We knew it had zero chance of succeeding, and would only tar the movement by lumping everyone in with the tin-foil hatters.
    (which would also be a non sequitur, but we’re talking the media here)

    You see a highly vocal group in that area, to be sure.  Many have powerful voices, too.  But they have never been in the majority among Conservatives, and among Republicans they are not even a significant presence.
    In fact, until the rise of Cruz, the issue had nearly disappeared from the public’s perception.

  • K-Bob

    Booker Trump is bad news.  He’s like the very worst aspect of Glenn Beck (who is great, but very imperfect) amplified up to eleventy.

  • K-Bob

    sDee PoCoTex  
    Who do you mean “we” Kemo Sabe?

  • K-Bob

    sDee stage9  
    And?
    Are you implying that Scoop has suddenly decided they are an authority?
    Seriously?
    You really need a “sarc” tag to go with Scoop’s headline, after all the time you’ve spent here?  I suggest you are taking things awfully far out of context in order to win the NBC argument. (Which is almost by definition an unwinnable argument.)

  • K-Bob

    sDee  
    They need to put UKIP in charge and get the h*ll away from the EU before they become Belgium.

  • K-Bob

    sDee  
    Did we not hear the same crap about “Palin worshippers?”
    Yes, yes we did.
    You really want to go there?

  • K-Bob

    wodiej  
    Your lack of understanding of his experience is not his lack of experience.

  • K-Bob

    just jo  
    Heh.  They are just warming up to this whole “vetting” idea. None of the new hires know what it means.

  • Booker

    K-Bob Booker Did you notice the headline? Natural born question “dogs” Cruz. Who the heck amongst us conservatives is having this question about Cruz? MSM will never change.

  • SheerPolitics

    sDee  It was NEVER precisely defined–which is why there’s such a heated debate over it now!
    Should the constitution be amended–probably so, because I’m telling you as of right now, some illegal alien could drop a kid over here and that kid would be eligible to be president at age 35 because s/he was considered a US citizen AT BIRTH. There is no requirement that both parents have to be citizens or that he has to be born in the US. It’s not in the constitution–I’ve looked.

  • Booker

    sDee PatrickJColliano Why didn’t the Founders put term limits in the Constitution? The Founders were great, but they weren’t infallible. We’ve got an amendment process for a reason. Are you saying that if 2 bona fide American parents have their child in Japan, the child isn’t an American? Is that what I’m hearing? I’ve said it before, this birtherism is making our side look silly. It’s amazing that there are still pockets of this till today.

  • SheerPolitics

    sDee   Now i know you’re a democrat trolling…

  • Conservative_Hippie

    just jo Agreed!

  • Conservative_Hippie

    Booker I have no problem with people questioning whether a Presidential candidate is eligible for the office.  Isn’t that in the Constitution…or something?

  • Conservative_Hippie

    Stehekin912 Agreed!

  • Conservative_Hippie

    The Libs owe us one!

  • Conservative_Hippie

    BookersDeePatrickJColliano”2 bona fide American parents”  -this is the critical issue in my opinion.  “2 bona fide American parents,” as you say makes a NBC, “1” may not.  I don’t think we will have a firm resolution on this until a case hits the the SCOTUS on this matter.

  • Conservative_Hippie

    K-BobsDeejcrichichi” Not even on the Dem side.”  -not sure I agree with you on this one K-Bob.

  • Conservative_Hippie

    K-BobsDeeK-Bob, I think sDee’s argument is not about “inalienable” rights.  Nor do I beleive sDee is arguing that they are, bust surely sDee’s argument is relevant as it pertains to the Constitutional eligibility of the office of the POTUS?

  • Conservative_Hippie

    CalCoolidge Agreed!

  • Conservative_Hippie

    DarkKnight2016KeyesI ma  conservative and I have to disagree with your statement, “We have always known that Cruz is eligible”.  I can’t say that for certainty.  I want to say it, trust me, but I still have my doubts 🙁

  • PatrickJColliano

    just jo They did vet Obama. You just didn’t like the answer you got.

  • PatrickJColliano

    sDee Army_Pilot1967 Jus sanguinis applies ONLY to those born outside the U.S. When born IN the U.S. birth in the U.S. is sufficient. When born outside the U.S., according to 8 U.S.C. section 1401, (e), all that is needed is ONE citizen parent who has lived in the U.S. for at least five years, at least two of which were attained after the 14th birthday.

  • waffle_anna

    Well, if Obama is eligible, then I guess Ted Cruz is too. Not that it matters, anyway, it just means the libs can’t touch him on this one. And he seems to know how to deal with the liberal jackals as well. Good man. Maybe he can be the Reagan of our time – either he or Gov. Palin. America needs it.

  • PatrickJColliano

    Booker sDee PatrickJColliano No, that is NOT what I’m saying. If born outside the U.S., according to 8 U.S.C. section 1401, paragraph (d), all that is required is ONE citizen parent who has lived in the U.S. for at least five years, at least two of which were attained after the 14th birthday. So, under the hypothetical situation you describe, YES, that child IS a natural born citizen. However, to REMAIN a natural born citizen of the U.S., he must indicate by his 21st birthday that he wishes to RETAIN his natural born citizenship. Usually, this is done by returning to the U.S. to reside.

  • PatrickJColliano

    sDee PatrickJColliano ryanomaniac There is NO third category. You are natural born or naturalized if you’re a U.S. citizen. If you were a citizen by birth, you’re natural born. If you must go through a legal process to gain citizenship, you’re naturalized.

  • K-Bob

    Booker K-Bob  
    Very good point. As much as we argue about it on the right, it will be the media that “dogs” Cruz with it.

  • K-Bob

    Conservative_Hippie Booker  
    The vetting should never stop. For anyone.  Even a long-time stalwart.
    It’s the sanity aspect we have to be careful about. When things get to the point like occasionally happens with some churches that have gone the schism route over one Bible verse (and ended up as two churches on opposite ends of town), then that’s where rational discourse has left the building.

  • K-Bob

    SheerPolitics sDee  
    No, sDee is definitely not a Democrat, and not trolling.

  • K-Bob

    Conservative_Hippie K-Bob sDee jcrichichi  
    I’m referring to things the way they were before the cliff–before barack.
    Now that we’ve gone over the cliff, anything goes. They’d nominate Zombie Idi Amin if they thought they could get away with it.

  • K-Bob

    Conservative_Hippie K-Bob sDee  
    Funny guy.

    Look, Cruz’s eligibility falls in an area of NBC interpretation that is not settled, and will NEVER be settled without a Constitutional Amendment (or possibly a law that goes unchallenged).

    The NBC screamers are claiming it IS settled, because they have some real facts that matter on their side. Unfortunately for them, the ones who oppose them also have real facts that matter on their side.
    Stalemate.
    Unwinnable.
    Especially when no person has standing to challenge.
    So choosing that hot disagreement as an absolute principle is like choosing quicksand as a basis for building. It’s clearly not the hill to die on.  It’s not even near the battlefield.

    First we restore liberty.
    After that’s covered, we can take care of the “official” meaning of the NBC clause by getting a law passed on it, or more preferably, an Amendment.

  • K-Bob

    SurfinCowboy  
    Good remind on Hillary.
    She’ll bring it again.  She’s proven that she has no shame.

  • K-Bob

    CalCoolidge subie201 Weiner has already got his own show.  On the internet.

  • PatrickJColliano

    All right, folks. I can see that some of you have drank deeply of the
    birther Kool-Aid, thanks to serial liars such as Mario Apuzzo, Orly
    Taitz, Jerome Corsi, Terry Lakin and others.
    If you guys can slog
    through this post, which will probably be long, I will explain what a
    natural born citizen is…WITH PROOF! I challenge ANYONE to prove me
    wrong on this. ANYONE.
    The authority for determining what is
    meant by the term “natural born citizen” comes to us through a Supreme
    Court decision called United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
    First the
    background that brought the case to the Surpeme Court. Wong Kim Ark was
    born in California to two U.S. citizen parents who were both Chinese
    citizens. While they were legally allowed to be in the U.S., Wong Kim
    Ark’s parents could NOT become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese
    Exclusion Acts, which prohibited Chinese people from becoming U.S.
    citizens.
    In short: a guy was born in the U.S. to alien parents.
    Wong
    Kim Ark took a trip to his parents’ homeland (China) and returned
    several months later, without incident. Then a few years later, he made
    another trip and returned to the U.S. This time, the collector of
    customs ordered him detained on the ship, claiming that he couldn’t be a
    U.S. citizen because he was Chinese and so were his parents.
    So,
    this guy was arrested for the despicable crime of coming home after
    extended vacation. Customs said there was no way he was an American
    citizen. Wong Kim Ark challenged this, and a petition for a Writ of
    habeas corpus was filed on his behalf in the Northern California
    District Court.
    Even though the judge agreed that citizenship
    SHOULD follow the parents’ nationality rather than place of birth, the
    judge also said he could NOT overrule existing precedent established by
    higher courts. He ordered  Wong Kim Ark released.
    But Customs wasn’t done. They petitioned the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court took the case.

  • PatrickJColliano

    Stay with me. This court ruling is 52 pages long, but I’m trying to give you the Reader’s Digest version.
    First,
    the Supreme Court observed that the Constitution uses the terms
    “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” but never defined the terms.
    Therefore, what they would do in order to determine what the founding
    fathers meant by these words, is to refer to English common law. This is
    NOT unprecedented. The Constitution uses many words that it doesn’t
    define that come to us from English common law. Words like “militia,”
    “bill of attainder,” “high crimes and misdemeanors,” “habeas corpus,”
    “ex post facto,” and yes, “natural born.”
    From the United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

    “The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses
    the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of
    the United States.’
    “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words,… In
    this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the
    common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to
    the framers of the Constitution.”
    You got it? The Supreme Court
    wants to know what is meant by “natural born,” so they’re going to go to
    the source: English common law.  This is NOT to say that we allow
    English law to govern us. Obviously, we don’t do that, or else we
    wouldn’t have fought a revolution against England in the first place. (I
    have to point this out, because idiot birthers tend to say stupid
    stuff, like, “Oh, tee-hee-hee! Silly me! I thought we gained our
    independence from England! Tee-hee!”) However, this IS to say that
    English common law is the SOURCE MATERIAL to help us understand terms
    that the Framers and the Founding Fathers didn’t explain to us.
    By
    the way, Mario Apuzzo has deliberately tried to mislead his readers, by
    claiming that the reference to “common law” was intended to refer to
    Vattel’s “Law of Nations” which supposedly is the source for American
    Common Law. Which is B.S.!
    The Supreme Court made it clear that
    this was a reference to ENGLISH common law. NOT Vattel. Vattel and his
    book “Law of Nations” is NOT MENTIONED EVEN ONCE in this decision.
    From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

    “In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
    “‘There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a
    national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as
    adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law,
    and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. .
    . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there
    is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the
    United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions
    are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be
    read in the light of its history.’”
    Notice, the Constitution is
    written in the language of ENGLISH COMMON LAW! 11 years before the
    Constitution was written, the framers of the Constitution WERE British
    subjects. Obviously, they knew English common law.

  • PatrickJColliano

    Having
    established that the meaning of “natural born citizen” must be derived
    from English common law, they dug into the works of prominent
    authorities on the subject of English common law, such as Alexander
    Cockburn, Chief Justice of the British Supreme Court, appointed by Queen
    Victoria. And another authority was noted British jurist of the day,
    Albert Venn Dicey.
    Look them up for yourselves, if you doubt anything I’m saying.
    Now,
    from Alexander Cockburn, they learned that ANYONE born in England, even
    to aliens, was a British subject from birth. (I know what some of you
    are thinking…just keep reading. It will become clear. I promise.)
    From the United States  v. Wong Kim Ark:
    “Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

    “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions
    of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and,
    in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely
    temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save
    only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because
    their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born
    to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the
    territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent
    as a source of nationality.”
    Some of you have probably been so
    duped by the birther movement that you think that citizen at birth
    doesn’t necessarily mean “natural born citizen.”
    Wanna bet?
    From United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
    “Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of
    England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896,
    states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed
    below in italics:
    “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has
    become a British subject at the moment of his birth. Subject to the
    exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the
    nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a
    natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle
    of English law on the subject of British nationality.”
    Notice, a “natural born British subject” means someone who is a British subject AT BIRTH!
    Now,
    remember, the Supreme Court said that the meaning of “natural born
    citizen” would be found by interpreting the words in light of English
    common law. See where this is headed?

    From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last
    three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and
    continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions
    possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the
    obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the
    jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in
    England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of
    an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an
    alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
    “III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon
    this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and
    in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the
    Constitution as originally established.”
    Ta-daaaah! A child born
    in England, even to aliens, was considered “natural born,” and the U.S.
    HAS ALWAYS observed “the same rule.”
    Game over, birthers. You need to stop lying to people.
    It
    is at this point that Mario Apuzzo has resorted to his most
    embarrassing lie of all. He claimed that the “Constitution as originally
    established,” referred to the Articles of Confederation. (Yes, he
    really did try to say this.
    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/attorney-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-ehancock-on-natural-born-citizen
    )
    There are times when I think Mario Apuzzo is only interested
    in the birther movement just to find out how much B.S. he can pull
    before even the birthers say, “Okay, not even WE believe that!”
    Here’s
    the ruling from Cornell University’s website. You can read it for
    yourselves.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
    You’ll
    see that EVERY court ruling that the Supreme Court referred to in order
    to support their case occurred AFTER 1787, when the Constitution was
    framed and adopted. Had they been referring to the Articles of
    Confederation, they would have cited source material that was written
    when the U.S. was UNDER the Articles of Confederation.  The Supreme
    Court has NEVER called the Articles of Confederation a “constitution.”
    One
    more thing. To prove that the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was
    a natural born citizen, despite being born to aliens, I’m going to
    quote the dissenting opinion.  Now a dissenting opinion carries NO
    judicial weight. It might be cited by future court rulings as
    “influential” but unless it is referenced in a court ruling, it’s only
    value is posterity. However, it IS useful in giving us Chief Justice
    Fuller’s (author of the dissenting opinion) perspective.
    He wrote: “… I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born
    citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known
    as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the
    children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing
    through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of
    the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency…”
    Notice,
    he is objecting to the idea that “natural born citizen” applied to
    EVERYBODY born in the U.S., even “the children of foreigners…while
    passing through the country.”
    Why would he object to that, unless that’s what the Court ruled?
    Okay,
    folks, that concludes my walkthrough of United States v Wong Kim Ark. I
    realize it’s a long post but that’s the shortest I could make it.  I
    had to cover the case, plus the common objections to it.
    And if
    you think I’m wrong, go to the Supreme Court case which I linked above,
    and you prove I’m wrong. I guarantee you, it won’t happen.

  • YoDix

    PatrickJColliano Wrong. The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

  • YoDix

    It’s really not hard to understand. Just read…
    The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

  • RickBulow

    YoDix you are wrong. PatrickJColliano had studied this (as have I) and we have the truth. Natural Born Citizen = CITZEN AT BIRTH

    ALSO, look at what Ankeny said:
    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 NE 2d 678 – Ind: Court of Appeals 2009

    Simply put: Any child born on US soil or in a US territory who retains American citizenship is a defacto NBC. PERIOD. Parents status means nothing.”

    It is called COMMON SENSE and OWNING THE NARRATIVE

  • RickBulow

    YoDix Debunked and disproven

    you birthers have lost the narrative. PatrickJColliano and I OWN it

  • PatrickJColliano

    YoDix PatrickJColliano No, YOU’RE wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled upon the Framers’ intent upon the term “natural born citizen.” Congress has attempted to create NO LAW or AMENDMENT to the contrary.
    Your source is B.S., nothing more.

  • PatrickJColliano

    YoDix PatrickJColliano No, YOU’RE wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled upon the Framers’ intent upon the term “natural born citizen.” Congress has attempted to create NO LAW or AMENDMENT to the contrary.
    Your source is B.S., nothing more.

  • PatrickJColliano

    YoDix the idea that Vattel is the source of law or constitutional terms laughable on the face of it. Birthers claim this, but they have NO IDEA what’s even IN Vattel.
    They just know that there’s some bad translations of Vattel that use the term “natural born citizen,” therefore they decide, “Ooooh…Vattel! He was so important to the Constitution.”
    No, he wasn’t. For instance, did you know that Vattel believed that NO ONE except law enforcement and nobility could own firearms? Obviously, in the U.S., we do NOT believe that.
    By the way, there were three different translations of Vattel at the time the Constitution was written, and NONE OF THEM used the term “natural born citizen.” NONE of them.

  • PatrickJColliano

    If Vattel was intended to be the source material for “natural born citizen” (a term that did NOT even exist in ANY English translation of “Law of Nations” at the time the Constitution was framed), then why did the Supreme Court, when deciding United States v Wong Kim Ark, decide that the definition of “natural born citizen” comes to us from English common law? And why, when they were trying to determined what was meant by “natural born citizen,” did they not even mention Vattel or “Law of Nations”? NOT EVEN ONCE!

  • RickBulow

    There is a link where Vattel is ranked 30th with .50% mentions in the Constitution. If Vattel was so revered by the Founders, then why did they not use him more? Could it be because his theory on Natural Born Citizen was WRONG and Blackstone (3rd with 7.90% mentions) was so revered as far as Natural Born Citizenship is concerned?

  • daddynoz

    Birthers are bad, crazy, etc. Got it.
    Some are nuts, if we want to be honest.
    Are those that merely wonder as to reasonable definition of “natural born citizen” nuts? Last I checked, the phrase NBC is only used once in the entirety of our Constitution. Last I checked, after the grandfather clause the only exception of the two US parents with child born on US soil are guy who obfuscated his birthplace and another who counted on his race to quell question, Arthur and Obama respectively.
    Then there is the Arpaio crowd, not wondering to elegibility but as to the veracity of the document put forth as proof of right to hold office. Some ask why the blackout on a firmly held believe by the sheriff’s office that the document posted on the WH website is without question a fraud subject to consideration as felony?
    The president is a fellow citizen. He is subject to our scrutiny. The birther label is BS for some to condemn when the doubts are provable.
    Minor v Happersett is clear. Read the opinion.
    For those who are interested in the graduate program, read Rogers v. Bellei – 401 U.S. 815 (1971);
    “Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional
    definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the
    combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the
    United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to
    the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not
    apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an
    American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth
    Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.”
    The anti-birthers would have you believe that the 14th is supreme in matters that birth citizenship is natural born citizenship. Well, you can’t have it both ways. Either those foreign born, regardless of the parents, are subject to our naturalization laws and are not eligible for the presidency or the 14th is not applicable.
    Me, I think John Jay and the history of our presidents are proof of an understanding: Those born with a hint of foreign allegiance (dual citizenship) are incompatible with the commander in chief duties. The only way there can be no inherent hazard are those born on our soil to parents of US citizenship. My two cents.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynozI never said the fourteenth established what the definition of natural born
    citizenship is. When deciding the case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme
    Court did not say that the definition of natural born citizenship was
    decided by the fourteenth amendment.
    The definition was settled long before the fourteenth amendment.
    I
    have read what birthers purport is a comprehensive definition of
    natural born citizen in the Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, and it says nothing of the sort. It says merely
    that it was never doubted that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents
    are natural born citizens. Something I never disputed.
    However,
    there is NOTHING in the language of Minor v. Happersett that states that
    that’s the ONLY way one can become a natural born citizen. On the
    contrary, Minor v. Happersett makes plain that they are NOT deciding the
    citizenship of those born in the country without reference to the
    citizenship of the parents, because it is NOT necessary to the case in
    front of them.
    Moreover, Minor v. Happersett is NOT a case about citizenship. It’s a case about voting rights for women.
    Wong
    Kim Ark, by contrast, was a case about the citizenship of someone born
    in this country to aliens. It had EVERYTHING to do with natural born
    citizenship.

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJCollianodaddynozYou said, “The definition was settled long before the fourteenth amendment.”
    Great phrase.
    “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,…”
    “There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by
    the fourteenth amendment “all persons born or naturalized in the United
    States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are expressly declared
    to be “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
    reside.” But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give
    them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United
    States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United
    States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such
    citizens without such provision.”
    You’re absolutely right about the understanding prior ratification of the 14th, in fact in 1875. The USSC understanding of born citizenship was defined, defined in relation to presidential eligibility;
    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of
    the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by
    naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it
    provideshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n6
    that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the
    United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be
    eligible to the office of President,”http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n7
    and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of
    naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by
    naturalization.
    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.”

  • daddynoz

    Alinsky rules 5, 11, and 13 have been effective for those who have wondered about the eligibility of the current president, and now a future Republican consideration.

    Look, does it sound reasonable that everyone seeking office is unquestionably eligible? If we listen to the commentators and media, yes. This is an obvious BS counter-argument. Some must be not for criteria that was understood long before we were born. So, what were those understandings? OMG! You’re that momentary consideration  for that thought crime. Birther!
    Natural born citizenship is a study in civics. Presidential eligibility is a study in constitutional understanding.
    Are the protestations of the 2nd and 10th amendments nuts? Well, if not…why is it crazy who we wonder as to those fellow citizens considered appropriate for the office of the presidency?
    I know….such thoughts are RACIST.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynozPatrickJColliano One of the things I’ve noticed about birthers who quote this ruling, is that they seem to have such a huge confirmation bias, that they want this ruling to say things that it doesn’t say.
    It says plainly, ” 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.”
    So, it says that those born in the United States to parents who are citizens are natural born citizens. Indeed it does say this. And no one here disputes that.
    What is NOT in the language of this ruling is that this is the ONLY way that one can be considered a natural born citizen. If the ruling had said, “These were natives, or natural born citizens, and this was the only way in which one could be considered a natural born citizen…” I would agree with you. But it does not say that. On the contrary, it says that “these were natives or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
    If this language were intended to be construed as the ONLY way one could be a natural born citizen, then it would follow that EVERYONE else is an “alien or foreigner.”  Really? So, if someone is born in the U.S. to ONE citizen parent, he’s an alien or foreigner? BS!
    In fact, the ruling goes on to say, “Some authorities
    go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction
    without reference to the citizenship of their http://therightscoop.com/verdict-is-in-cnn-says-ted-cruz-eligible-to-run-for-president/
    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.”
    So, the Supreme Court, for the purposes of this case, are NOT going to settle the question of citizenship of those born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents, because it’s not necessary for the purposes of this case.
    Virginia Minor, who claimed that the fourteenth amendment gave her the right to vote (specifically the Privileges or Immunities clause), was born in the U.S. to citizen parents. Therefore, there was no need to address the citizenship of those born in any other circumstances.
    In fact, there was no need to even establish that Virginia Minor was a “natural born citizen,” because there is no difference between the voting rights of naturalized citizens or natural born citizens.
    As the court said, ” It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all
    children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves
    citizens.”
    They need only establish that Virginia Minor was a citizen, without consideration of which type. And the Courts can ONLY create precedent on an issue that is before them. Virginia MInor was suing for the right to vote, NOT suing for the right to run for President. There is no need for them to establish a comprehensive definition of “natural born citizen” because that was NOT a question before them.
    As I said, it is amazing to me how many people, because of their need to convince themselves that Obama is NOT eligible, try to convince themselves that this ruling says things that it does NOT say.
    To illustrate with an unrelated example, suppose I said, “The kangaroo is a mammal in which the female has a natural pouch which covers the teats and is used for carrying her young. Therefore the kangaroo is a marsupial.”
    That is a true statement. But am I saying with this statement that the kangaroo is the ONLY marsupial? Nope. That would be ridiculous since wombats, bandicoots, opossums, possums and other animals are also marsupials.
    But you see a statement that says that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents are natural born citizens, and you arrive at the same illogical conclusion that that is the ONLY way you can become a natural born citizens. Poppycock.
    If you scroll down a little bit, I’ve create three consecutive posts regarding the ruling of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. I have PROVEN that anyone born in the United States, even to aliens, is a natural born citizen.

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJCollianodaddynoz “I have PROVEN that anyone born in the United States, even to aliens, is a natural born citizen.”
    Hooray for expediency!
    The 14th applies when convenient. Rogers v Bellei is ignored.
    If you believe the anti-birthers, those born on our soil to criminal trespassers are future presidents while those born abroad to military service members on orders are not.
    Which USSC decision suits your purpose? Ignorance and lies are a premise for a convincing stance? You state MvH is about a voting rights premise on the 14th when the court stated it rather political in relation to citizenship, “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 anti-birther ignores the later USSC reflection of Rogers v Bellei regarding the 14th, desperately wanting all arguments considered equally valid. Sorry, impossible.
    If Obama is eligible per the 14th, then there is no possibility that Cruz in the same highest court understanding.

  • Willie Heath

    K-Bob Booker It is about as bad as the lamestream media, (Politicos Chris Cilliza, Wa Po) today, has their pantys in a wad, because Sarah Palin called out Chris Christies schtick and his big Government stance, when she was on Eric Bollings “Cashin In” last Saturday. The media wants Christie to attack back at Palin. They are bored an instigating headlines.

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJCollianoBTW, the right minded understanding is “birther”.
    Obama is and never was eligible due his father’s citizenship. Same for Rubio due his parents’ citizenship.

    Cruz is and never was eligible due his place of birth. Same for McCain.
    This mentality does not affringe those born abroad to military parents on orders, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
    I suggest folks look at the parentage of past presidents and judge the precedence established. I know, I know, such consideration is RACIST.
    http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/2009/01/first-post-natural-born-presidency-and.html

  • RickBulow

    daddynoz False. Rubio and Cruz ARE eligible. As is McCain PatrickJColliano had shown you but you fail to see the TRUTH

  • daddynoz

    RickBulow daddynoz PatrickJColliano  No, they failed to apply the same logic most of humanity applies to normal rules of argument.
    Truth is determined by relations between facts understood. The fact that Obama is eligible per the 14th and Cruz not so much per Rogers v Bellei is and was completely ignored.
    Great news on your proof of life. Tell your captors, “thanks”.

  • RickBulow

    daddynoz Actually, you fail miserably. you do not know what you are talking about.  PatrickJColliano and I had researched this and we KNOW that Obama, Cruz, Rubio, McCain, Jindal, and Haley ARE ELIGIBLE. So Just. Stop. Lying

  • daddynoz

    RickBulow daddynoz PatrickJColliano Rick the constitutional lawyer, Rick the supreme court justice, Rick the guy who knows stuff and quit questioning his esteemed internet opinion…
    Hug a root, Rick.
    I’m nobody and have no airs as to my understanding, just stating what is, as you say, “PROVABLE”.
    Your stance is for what, political agenda?
    Me, I think the constitution is all that stands between us and tyranny or anarchy. Kinda lofty.
    You, very plausible that you are just a mouth breathing socialist douche.

  • kssturgis62

    PatrickJColliano daddynozUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    In this http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html#649, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment.  In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court.  On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
    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.
    On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States.  The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

    Notice that it states CHILDREN BORN OF PARENTS not of a parent, BUT OF PARENTS that is Natural Born.

  • kssturgis62

    PatrickJColliano daddynoz so then .do you believe that all dogs are dogs, but poodles are different from collies? or do you believe Poodles are the same as collies? if you believe poodles and collies are the same, then you must also believe that Osama bin Laden could have come here,  gotten a woman pregnant and that baby could grow up to be President of the USA. 
    If you believe that, than we have a serious problem. Because that child is NOT Natural Born. 
    Born on American Soil does not make one natural born. Born of Two Citizen parents makes one natural Born. Illegals who came here and had children, their children are NOT natural born. Marco Rubio is not Qualified, and he lied about his parents and when they came here. Ted Cruz never lied about his parents, but he is not qualified. I love Ted Cruz, been against Marco since the beginning of time. 
    But Ted, Jindall, Haley, Rubio, are Not qualified to be POTUS. If people want to call me crazy or a birther so be it. I will not cheat to win, and I don’t think we should. If anything Obama should have opened up everyone’s eyes. Marco Rubio proved why foreign Influence is so dangerous.

  • daddynoz

    RickBulowPatrickJColliano Mr. Douche, apologize for comparing you to willfully ignorant, political apparatchiks, hell bent on bending reasonable question into something lessor worth consideration.
    Constitutional question of presidential eligibility = birther. My, what economy of words.
    Birther = racist, crazy, paranoid, cause for hatred of such constitutional consideration.
    Birther hatred and fear of notice is fortunately bipartisan. God love this country, something both parties can share in their fear.
    Rick, et al, beware of disparaging that which has legs in the general consideration that refuses to be disregarded outright. 
    Years of court decisions that run from a straightforward question hasn’t quelled in the least the wonder…close-minded hillbillies or salt of the earth constitutionalists?

    Do you hate your fellow American?

  • sDee

    It  looks like Bulow and Collino have been teaming up here all day to deceive. These guys are running exactly the same deceptive “constitutional interpretation” arguments that claimed the 2nd amendment was never precisely defined and led to the assault weapons ban, handgun contorls and magazine bans. 
    It also looks like Cruz’s lawyers have been busy beavers building legal smoke and mirror campaign for Cruz just like Husseins’s advance teams did for him in 2006.
     Questions still unanswered.
    What was the original of the NBC clause and why is that no longer valid?Why did the founders chose to apply NBC only to office of  president and not for the other offices?Why did Obama spend tens of millions of dollars fighting court cases to reject claims that h was not  in the US and was eleigble?If Obama declared today he was born in Kenya, would he still be in office?
    All of their arguments lead to only one eligibility requirement for the office of President: that one’s mother be a citizen – even the illegal foreign national son of an illegal foreign national woman given amnesty 1 minute earlier would immediately be eligibility. SO…why didn’t the Founders put in Article 2 Seciton1 simply that to be President one’s mother just needed to be a natural citizen or a naturalized citizen? 

    http://www.livefyre.com/profile/17966500/

  • RickBulow

    sDee What PatrickJColliano and I are doing is SHOWING COMMON SENSE. You and your birther ilk had lost the narrative when you opened your mouth.

  • RickBulow

    daddynoz RickBulow PatrickJColliano It is called common sense. Get some

  • RickBulow

    Let me ex-plain it to your Birther goons once more:
    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 NE 2d 678 – Ind: Court of Appeals 2009

    Simply put: Any child born on US soil or in a US territory who retains American citizenship is a defacto NBC. PERIOD. Parents status means nothing”

    THIS proves that Obama, Rubio, Haley, and Jindal are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 THIS proves that Cruz and McCain are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. Read subsection (e) “a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person”
    ALSO, Birthers are a whopping 0 That is ZERO) for 400 in debates in court on birther issues
    Game, set, match.

  • sDee

    father

    Anyone who calls me a birther because I defend the intent and purpose of the Consitution has started a fight. is tantamount to calling those of us who defend the intent of the Second Amendnet right wing militia.
    Hussein Obama was most likely born in Hawaii. Hussein Obama and his campaign created a piss poor forged birth certificate as a distraction and decoy because he and his legal team knew his true ineligibility lie in jus sanquinis – his father was not a US citizen. 
    I have debated this often here  trying to explain and share. Bulow and Collino know well the sleight of hand and use it to deceive. Husein Obama did the same in the runup to his primary. All are seditious arguments as they care only to get the candidate elected and nothing for the permanent damage this does to our Constitution and sovereignty..
    When the Obama and Cruz ineligibility precedents are in place and unchallenged , the globalists will be able to install anyone in the White House anytime they want.

    “A draft of “Conduct Unbecoming of An Officer,” from the upcoming book “Birthers Are Liars,” by Patrick J. Colliano”
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/101538847/Conduct-Unbecoming-of-an-Officer

  • RickBulow

    sDee Parentage means NOTHING when it comes to NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP. Quit drinking the birther cool-aid and get some common sense

  • sDee

    RickBulow sDee PatrickJColliano 
    nice

  • sDee

    RickBulow 
    Massive money and time has been put into covering for Obama. America is under assault from  If you have read Donofrio’s research on Wong Kim Ark, and  Minor v. Happersett you know then  that you are misleading the readers here.
    It is easier to understand your deception then by answering why  the Constitutional Qualifications only included NBC for President, and why the founders had to create a one-time-only exclusion for themselves to the NBC requirement.  
    You cannot answer those in truth and have your arguments below still hold.

  • Susanb958

    sDee I don’t believe Obama was born in Hawaii. There was one interview where he didn’t remember his birthday. That was what convinced me for sure.

  • Susanb958

    RickBulow sDee If parentage means nothing, the Cruz is Canadian.

  • sDee

    Susanb958 sDee  
    I do believe he was but it is not too important because Obama himself admitted his father  was a Kenyan citizen under British rule. That would make him ineligible under the same NBC clause that would make him in eligible if born in Kenya.
    The globalists and marxist intent on destroying our Constitution and Soverinty knew Obama was ineligible. There were legal teams in place looking into this many years before the Manchurian was put up for election. What they did was clever.
    Suppose Obama was not born on US soil. Now with Soros money behind him, Obama could have easily had the best forged  birth certificate created by the best counterfeiters money can buy.So why did they put out an amateurish photo-shopped version? It was a ruse. A distraction to send everyone off the trail l of his true ineleibility – non citizen parents. It worked and any one who quesiotned his true ineleigibility was ridiculed as a “birther”. Bulow and Colliano are using that same tactic here today.
    If Cruz is behind this, we are in far greater peril than I could have ever imagined.

  • daddynoz

    sDee1. The only legal understanding of presidential eligibility is found in the USSC opinion of MvH.
    2. The office the presidency is also that of commander in chief. The power over the armed forces has consequence to that of state. See Roman Empire.
    3. Obama is two faced douche (i,e. the transparency guy). Posting a fraudulent BC should have been enough, unfortunately he had policy to lie about also.
    4 Obama used his publicist to extort a Kenyan heritage, no one blinked either before the election or after. Let it go, right?
    5. Mom’s are the fount of eligibility. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Ho Chi MIhn, etc. had moms, hooray. Perhaps we should be discriminatory if a North Korean or Iranian diganatory had a child born in the US.
    I hate the liberal view that everyone born here and abroad, regardless of the political affiliation of the parents, is somehow afforded the same rights as those unequivocally understood as American.Per Vattel; § 213. Inhabitants.
    The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are
    permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their
    residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it;
    and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though
    they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the
    advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are
    those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of
    citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without
    participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of
    their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual
    residence, their right passes to their posterity.
    BS influence? 
    Press Statement
    Hillary Rodham Clinton
    Secretary of State
    Washington, DC
    July 29, 2011
    On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I
    am delighted to congratulate the people of Switzerland on the 720th
    anniversary of your republic this August 1.
    In the seven centuries since the first Federal Charter was signed,
    the Swiss Confederation has played an important role in world affairs.
    Your rich history of neutrality gives you the ability to mediate and
    reconcile difficult conflicts. You have been a vital partner for over 30
    years representing American interests in Iran and other countries
    throughout the world.
    America’s Founders were inspired by the ideas and values of early
    Swiss philosophers like Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui and Emer de Vattel, and
    the 1848 Swiss Constitution was influenced by our own U.S. Constitution.
    Swiss commitment to democracy is an example for nations and people
    everywhere who yearn for greater freedoms and human rights.
    As you celebrate this special day, know that the United States stands
    with you and we look forward to a future filled with friendship and
    cooperation.

  • sDee

    daddynozsDee 
    “I hate the liberal view that everyone born here and abroad, regardless
    of the political affiliation of the parents, is somehow afforded the
    same rights as those unequivocally understood as American.”
    This is what is behind the not-so-coincidental rash of ineligible candidates and wannabe candidates (Calero, McCain, Obama, Rubio, Cruz, Jindal)

    The useful liberal idiots with their “global village” mentality serve the globalists who have honed in on this crucial element of our Constitution and soverinty. Fools all of  them and now joined by  the Conservatives who happily  serve up the jus soli sucker punch with Cruz.

  • daddynoz

    RickBulow daddynoz PatrickJColliano Great. The answer to curiosity is question of the ability at common sense. I take it you would have been a loyalist during our revolution? Held onto slavery when others were at war in Kansas prior to the civil war? 
    Conventional thought is an expedient, overly conservative conceit of those in the majority.
    Good job seeing the broader, unpopular, view. 
    Douche.

  • heiming

    tinyurl.com/lr69xbu

  • daddynoz

    Hypocrisy is a sin and should not be humored regardless of political affiliation. 
    It is understood that some, for whatever reason, refuse to take a stand on presidential eligibility, it is inexcusable to acknowledge the question or its adherents have standing.
    All media pundits and politicians deserve citizenry scorn for denying the merit of the constitutional wonderment.
    Cruz ,may be eligible, but maybe not. Why does this question stop because it may cause political discomfort? No matter of this import should be closed for such small self serving reason.

  • sDee

    PatrickJColliano sDee Army_Pilot1967  
    That has nohtieng to do with eligibility for president of Untied Statess. That is for citizneship – it is neither based upon nor does it efine the eleigbility clause of the Consitution . Hell hat law did not even exist at the time fo the OCnsitution.

    NBC status has no real use outside Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution. FOr every other aspect of America rights the distinction of NBC is the same as Citizen and Naturalized Citizen – EXCEPT FOR OFFICE OF PRESIDENT.! The founders used NBC for a sole and crucial purpose – to repel usurpation.

  • sDee

    daddynoz  
    We shall soon see the true character of Ted Cruz. 
    The dangers of usurpation in having no eligibility requirements on the office of President must be clear to Ted Cruz. 
    After Obama and then a President Cruz, we will have set precedent that the President of the United States need not be born in the United States, nor born to US citizen parents. That Mr Cruz must also see clearly as an open door to anyone on the planet to be eligible.
    A man of principle would not send forth teams of lawyers to cloud the skies  with smoke. A man of principle, a man who claims strict adherence to the intent of the Constitution, would stand tall upon the Founders intent of NBC and pursue a ruling on his eligibility..

  • PatrickJColliano

    Susanb958 RickBulow sDee Incorrect. Parentage means NOTHING if born IN the U.S. If born OUTSIDE the U.S., then one is a natural born citizen if you have at least ONE citizen parent who has lived in the U.S. for at least five years, at least two of which were attained AFTER the fourteenth birthday. Since Cruz’s mother is a LIFELONG American, Cruz is a natural born citizen.

  • PatrickJColliano

    sDee RickBulow Donofrio is simply wrong. Minor v. Happersett is a case about women’s voting rights could create NO PRECEDENT as to a natural born citizen. And even if it could, the only thing Minor v. Happersett stated was that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents are natural born citizens. In no way does Minor v. Happersett RESTRICT the term. Nor could it, since that this the constitutionally protected right of CONGRESS, not the courts.

  • PatrickJColliano

    kssturgis62 PatrickJColliano daddynoz Actually, yes, if Osama bin Laden came to the U.S., fathered a child, that child would be a natural born citizen.
    I doubt the American people would elect such a person as President, but hey, if they elect him, he’s elected. Maybe he could convince the majority of Americans that he’s nothing like his father and is a true-blue American but I doubt ti.

  • PatrickJColliano

    kssturgis62 PatrickJColliano daddynoz if you believe that, then you don’t believe Minor v. Happersett, since it implied that natives or natural born citizens mean the same thing.
    “There’s were natives or natural born citizens…” from Minor v. Happersett.

  • RickBulow

    sDee RickBulow PatrickJColliano I did. YOU just do not like the answer because it does not fit with YOUR liberal, socialistic mindset

  • RickBulow

    daddynoz RickBulow PatrickJColliano Bite me daddy.

    Patrick and I have proven you and your birther ilk wrong every time. yet you come back like the masochists you are

  • PatrickJColliano

    Hey, Rick, you were right. It IS national director Dee, the admin of that stupid, sorry tea-party page that banned us for telling the truth.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz I don’t believe that the question is being stopped. I believe you just keep asking it because you don’t like the answers.
    You ask, are Obama, Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, eligible to be President.
    Answer: YES.
    So, you keep right on asking. The answer is not going to change. They are eligible. And lying about it will not change that fact.

  • PatrickJColliano

    RickBulowsDeePatrickJColliano

    <What was the original of the NBC clause and why is that no longer valid? Answer: The NBC clause is from Article II section 1 of the Constitution which states that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen. And it IS still valid. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to make it invalid.
    Why did the founders chose to apply NBC only to office of  president and not for the other offices? You’ll have to ask them. Most of those who hold office ARE natural born citizens.
    Why
    did Obama spend tens of millions of dollars fighting court cases to
    reject claims that h was not  in the US and was eleigble? Prove this. I want to see what source you’re quoting that states he spent tens of millions of dollars.  Or just admit you’re lying.
    If Obama declared today he was born in Kenya, would he still be in office? Yes. He would still be a natural born citizen due to his mother’s citizenship.
    All
    of their arguments lead to only one eligibility requirement for the
    office of President: that one’s mother be a citizen – even the illegal
    foreign national son of an illegal foreign national woman given amnesty 1
    minute earlier would immediately be eligibility. SO…why didn’t the
    Founders put in Article 2 Seciton1 simply that to be President one’s
    mother just needed to be a natural citizen or a naturalized citizen? 
    No, that’s not what we said. Cruz and Obama just happen to have mothers who are U.S. citizens. If born in the U.S. the citizenship of the parents doesn’t matter (unless the parents are foreign diplomats or hostile invaders; Obama’s father was neither). If born OUTSIDE the U.S. all that’s required is ONE citizen parent who has lived in the U.S. for at least five years, at least two of which occurred after the fourteenth birthday. This is according to 8 U.S.C. section 1401.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynozPatrickJCollianoI just now noticed this, and it is VERY SAD that you believe this…
    You wrote: “You’re absolutely right about the understanding prior to ratification of
    the 14th, in fact in 1875. The USSC understanding of born citizenship
    was defined, defined in relation to presidential eligibility;”
    You
    really have no idea when the 14th Amendment was ratified, do you? You
    really believe that 1875 was “prior to the ratification of the 14th.”
    That’s what you just said. This is really, really depressing to me. You think you’re hear arguing for the Constitution, but you’re THIS ignorant of history!
    You
    are this ignorant of the history of this nation, and you think you can
    smugly lecture us about what a natural born citizen is???? You’ve GOT to
    be kidding.
    You need a basic course in grade school U.S. history, then a civics course. THEN you can tell us what a natural born citizen is.
    My
    God, you could have gone to Wikipedia and found out in TWO MINUTES when
    the 14th Amendment was ratified, then you would have avoided making a
    fool of yourself by saying that Minor v. Happersett was PRIOR to the
    14th Amendment.
    You also proved that you haven’t even READ Minor
    v. Happersett, since that would have clued you in. Virginia Minor was
    arguing that the privileges or immunities clause of the fourteenth
    amendment gave her the right to vote.
    Obviously, since she
    believes that the fourteenth amendment gave her the right to vote, the
    ruling of Minor v Happersett could NOT have happened PRIOR to the 14th
    amendment.
    You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. You’re
    trying to argue about the 14th Amendment and Minor v. Happersett and you
    have just proven that you have no idea when the 14th Amendment was
    ratified and you have NO IDEA what’s in Minor v. Happersett. Good grief!
    Do a little research.
    The ruling of Minor v Happersett is barely 12 pages long. How lazy are you???

  • sDee

    PatrickJColliano  wrong – i have no website

  • sDee

    RickBulow sDee PatrickJColliano  funny i cannot find your answers.

  • subie201

    This GREAT American Patriot has my vote!

  • PatrickJColliano

    sDee Susanb958 Because he didn’t put out a photoshopped birth certificate. Those who claim it was photoshopped are a bunch of rank amateurs who believe that the normal glitches that occur with scanned documents are proof of forgery. Nonsense.

  • ChuckMeyer

    Since when do you believe than any media investigation is the right answer?  CNN may be right, but until the Supreme Court has a case before it on facts like Ted Cruz’s, we will never have a definitive answer.

  • Orangeone

    sDee daddynoz The difference is that Ted Cruz was in fact born to US Citizens, his mom by birth his father through naturalization. The same cannot be said for Obama.

  • kssturgis62

    Orangeone sDee daddynoz Ted was not Born to Two US Citizens. His dad was not a Citizen when he was born. Rafael Cruz did not become a US citizen until 2005. Ted was born in Calgary Alberta Canad, which every one knows, his mother was a US citizen when he was born. 
    he was born December 22, 1970. His family came back to the USA when he was 4. 
    Ted like Obama is NOT natural born. Just like Rubio, Jindall, Haley, are not natural born.

  • Orangeone

    kssturgis62 Orangeone sDee daddynoz Ted is natural born because of his mother.  IMO Obama’s mother renounced citizenship when they moved and she married in Indonesia, a country that did not permit dual citizenship or educate noncitizens.

  • kssturgis62

    PatrickJColliano kssturgis62 daddynoz You doubt they would elect such a Person. You just proved the False hoods you are spreading. 
    The People Elected Obama. That child Patrick is NOT natural Born. Why haven’t you in all your research READ THE JAY TREATY. 
    I am not talking about John Jay’s letter to George Washington I am talking about the Jay Treaty. Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land. 
    Also you don’t know much about the 14th Amendment. Because if you did, you would know that that Amendment was Written to give Blacks their Citizenship. Do you know it didn’t even Give citizenship to American Indians and after it was passed, Congress had to pass a Special Law to give Indians their Citizenship. 
    also why haven’t you read the federalist Papers? Have you bothered to read Essays 4, 5, and 6? I suggest you do. Until then I would stop spreading the false information that you are. All Dogs are Not collies and they are different, and you putting them all in one block as the same, you are dangerous to the Republic that is and has Completely fallen apart.

  • kssturgis62

    Orangeone kssturgis62 sDee daddynoz There is much more information out there that states Two Citizen Parents and citizenship is derived mostly from the Father. He is not natural born, he has even stated he is a Citizen by Birth when asked if he was eligible. He has never stated he was Natural Born. Ted has been asked the question more than once, and his words are I am a Citizen by Birth. He has never said I am a NATURAL BORN citizen.

  • Orangeone

    kssturgis62 Orangeone sDee daddynoz Yes there is a lot of information out there but the great scholars have ruled he is in fact eligible including staunch Dem Alan Derschowitz. 
    The 14th Amendment, BTW, refers to “citizens born or naturalized”.  Paragraph 3 of the 14th Amendment also gives us cause to remove Barack Obama and members of Congress because you cannot hold the office of potus if you have pledged an oath to defend the US and then rebelled against her.

  • Orangeone

    kssturgis62 Orangeone sDee daddynoz If you use that logic, women who have been sexually assaulted and impregnated do not have a US Citizen child. That’s bunk.

  • RickBulow

    kssturgis62 Orangeone sDee daddynoz Citizen at birth = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

  • PatrickJColliano

    kssturgis62 Orangeone sDee daddynoz He’s still natural born. The idea that you need two citizen parents to be considered natural born is simply a lie.

  • daddynoz

    OK. Agree to disagree seems to be prevalent.
    I agree that those who ignore the history of presidents elected born after the grandfather clause, poo poo the findings of Cold Case Posse, and cannot find the time to resolve the USSC Rogers v Bellei with anyone born to an American citizen is natural born…is a disagreeable douche.
    Answer the birther doubts. Wong Kim Ark resolved the question of those born to those lawfully residing in the US regardless of their citizenship. Commie pinko douches would have you believe that this equates presidential eligibility to anchor babies of foreign lawbreakers, persons born with foreign obligations to another government are well qualified to be the next commander in chief.
    Graduate level question: Natural born citizenship is defined differently by many nations. Tell me how the Mexicans define NBC? If you were born in Mexico to an American father would you be eligible for their presidency, or even their citizenship?

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz I don’t know how Mexico defines “natural born citizen,” nor do I care. It has nothing to do with how the U.S. defines it. We don’t let other countries decide for us who is a natural born citizen.
    Who said anybody was “well-qualified”? Not I, that’s certain. Eligible does equal qualified. Timothy McVeigh was eligible. It doesn’t follow that he was qualified.
    Ignore the history? You mean like Chester Arthur, whose father was not a citizen of the United States until Chester Arthur was fourteen years old?
    I’m not sure what you think Rogers v. Bellei proves.

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJColliano daddynoz Well, if anything you’re honest in your ignorance…has to be worthy of some modicum of props.
    I received several BSMs, so did McVeigh…the asshole kinda stole the thunder of the recognition. Oh, well.
    As for the rest, there is always context. Children of illegals eligible for the presidency while those born of two US military citizens stationed abroad are not (i.e.Rogers v Bellei).
    Some of us ignorant knuckle-dragging birthers require reasonable context per our USSC precedence. MvH, WKA, RvB…political rights based on presidential eligibility, citizenship based on legal residence, understanding of the severe restraints of the 14th.
    I’m tracking that progressive douches can’t have both worlds…those born abroad to american citizens are not eligible for the presidency while those born to illegal aliens are in context of the 14th (RvB).
    Pick a stance that is comfortable with your allegiance to constitutional principle. Me, it is a bridge to far that one is unquestionable and the other subject to doubt.
    Obama was born in the US to a Brit. He was born a dual national. He traveled with his mom to Indonesia where later naturalized. He likely traveled on that passport to Pakistan. Mentored by a communist, did not respect the US and unlikely registered for selective service. Yada yada.
    So we have a president that has no redeeming nationalism for consideration. Is this someone our founders considered a likely candidate for commander in chief? Not according to John Jay.
    Research the NBC on your own. The answer is that, no, such a person is not even a citizen of Mexico.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynozPatrickJColliano
    You’d probably be less frustrated if you didn’t make up lies as you go along. First, Obama never lost his U.S. citizenship. He left the country and age six and returned at age ten. It is a <i>known fact</i> that parents <i>cannot</i> renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children.
    Here’s a travel link from a government website: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html
    Please note paragraph F:
    <blockquote>

    F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS

    Citizenship
    is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen.  Therefore, parents
    may not renounce the citizenship of their
    minor children.  Similarly, parents/legal
    guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are
    mentally incompetent.
     Minors seeking to renounce their U.S.
    citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting
    voluntarily
    and that they fully understand the
    implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S.
    citizenship.</blockquote>
    You think Obama could convince a U.S. Consulate that he understood what he was doing, and wanted to renounce his U.S. citizenship at <i>age six</i>? Precocious lad, wasn’t he? Because there is <i>nothing</i> his mother or his step father could have done to cause Obama to lose his U.S. citizenship.
    When the Supreme Court deciding <i>United States v Wong Kim Ark</i> considered whether or not WKA had somehow lost his citizenship, they said that whether his parents even <i>could</i> have caused him to lose his citizenship was “at least doubtful.”
    The Supreme Court decision of <i>Perkins v Elg</i> covered this in much greater detail.  A minor child <i>cannot</i> lose his U.S. citizenship by any act of his parents.
    I don’t know of any “progressive douches” who say that children of American citizens born abroad of citizen parents <i>aren’t</i> natural born citizens. 8 U.S.C. section 1401 (g) says they are. In fact, according to this law, all that’s required is <i>one</i> citizen parent, who has lived in the U.S. for at least five years, at least two of which were attained after the 14th birthday, and you’re in like Flynn.
    Here’s a link to the law I’m talking about: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
    Yes, Cruz is eligible. Whether or not he would be a good presidential candidate is for you to decide for yourself. But he <i>is</i> eligible.
    You want context? Sure thing.
    Minor v Happersett: Virginia Minor was married to her distant cousin Francis Minor. Francis was a lawyer, by occupation. They did have one child, who tragically died in an accident. When the Fourteenth Amendment was first ratified, the Minors noted the privileges and immunities clause, which states that nothing shall abridge the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States.
    The Minors both agreed that the right to vote was a privilege extended to citizens, therefore that the fourteenth amendment gave women the right to vote. Francis Minor drafted pamphlets on the subject and distributed them all over the country. Virginia attempted to register to vote in Missouri, but was rebuffed by the registrar, Reese Happersett, on the grounds that she was a woman. Represented by Francis, she sued and lost. She also lost in the state Supreme Court, so, they petitioned to the USSC.
    The USSC came to the unanimous conclusion that the Constitution does not give the right to vote to <i>anyone</i> and that voting was controlled by the states. Therefore, it was not one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship.
    While the Supreme Court conceded that the law might be wrong and should be changed, that power did NOT rest with them. And in an appropriate exercise of judicial restraint suggested that the Minors use their arguments to appeal to those with the power to change the law.
    The reason I say is that it could not create a precedent about the definition of natural born citizen is because there is no difference between the voting rights of natural born or naturalized citizens. There is no need to establish Virginia Minor was a “natural born citizen,” Because she was only suing for the right to vote, NOT the right to run for President.
    As the Supreme Court said, ” It is sufficient for everything we have now to
    consider that all children born of citizen parents within the
    jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
    Notice, just citizens. not natural born citizens. That’s all they needed to know to decide the issue before them. Which is why it would be wildly inappropriate for the Supreme Court to say, “This is how natural born citizen is defined and this is the only way to define it.”
    For one thing, they didn’t need to do that for the case in front of them.
    And for another, that power belonged to Congress, not the courts.
    From that very same ruling: “Under the power to adopt a uniform system of
    naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien,
    being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United
    States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling
    within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the
    time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the
    United States, <i>and that the children of citizens of the United States
    that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United
    States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.</i>”
    Notice, Congress is passing laws that make natural born citizens of those born outside the U.S. to citizen parents. And the Supreme Court is saying that that is within their power.
    Would they say that if they were defining natural born citizen? Nope. They’d say that this law is unconstitutional and strike it down.
    As for Wong Kim Ark, I’ve already given the background on that. If you scroll down, you’ll find my three-post monster in which I discuss Wong Kim Ark, and the first post provides the background.
    As for Rogers v Bellei, I haven’t read it and I’m not sure if it truly says what you think it does. I doubt it. Those born outside the U.S. to citizen parents ARE natural born citizens. But I’ll have to take a look.

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJCollianodaddynoz”The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time.
    Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.
    Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different
    laws rather than by choice.”
    “The U.S. Government recognizes that
    dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy
    because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual
    national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality
    may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The
    country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim
    to that person’s allegiance.”
    “However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.
    Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the
    person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals,
    must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual
    nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its
    passport to enter and leave that country.”
    http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz PatrickJColliano If this is a concern about Obama, he lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 23, if he ever had it. Kenya requires those with dual citizenship to renounce foreign citizenship and resume Kenyan citizenship at age 21, and gives a two year grace period to do this. So, at 23, his citizenship from Kenya, if he ever had any, was gone.

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJColliano daddynoz  I’ll type slow so you can keep up…the man was “born” a dual national. 
    1. Is one born a dual national natural born?
    2. Are those born dual nationals conducive to understanding of the responsibilities inherent with commander in chief of our Armed Forces.
    3. If Obama were a Republican would there be such defense of his eligibility (i.e. recall birtherism was initiated by democrats)? This thread is about Cruz which proves “birthers” are truly equal opportunity “haters”.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz PatrickJColliano 
    1. Think about what you’re asking. You’re suggesting that someone might be born in the U.S. but have citizenship in another country through the operation of their laws, and that this somehow prevents the United States from recognizing them as a natural born citizen.
    That would be allowing another country to decide for us who we can and can’t recognize as a natural born citizen.
    Unless you can find an actual law to that effect, I’m going to say the answer is no.
    2. That would depend on how loyal or involved they were in their other nationality. And ultimately, I think that’s for the people to determine for themselves. Obama obviously didn’t impress people as being overly conflicted about U.S. interests vs. those of Kenya.
    The “natural born citizenship” clause is not our foolproof protection against making bad decisions at the polls. People have to be responsible and make informed decisions, not expect the Constitution to walk the ideal President right into the White House.
    Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s Vice-President, was born with both Greek and U.S. citizenship. Yet, he was still eligible. Chester Arthur was born with Irish and American citizenship, but he was still eligible.
    3. Well, John McCain faced some scrutiny over his citizenship. But I don’t remember democrats questioning his eligibility. Birtherism seems to be a Republican thing.

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJCollianodaddynoz”Birtherism seems to be a Republican thing.”
    Not really, it started with democrats. Fortunately was later executed with logic by the Lincoln party that abolished slavery.
    It is one thing to be born of a dual national and entirely another to be born of someone without any understanding or acknowledgement of US citizenship. WKA recognized those with understood legal residency have right to birth to US citizenship children, though no specific “natural born” right to presidential office. Birthers understand some born on our soil are inherent citizens, just not necessarily Art II presidential eligible.
    Per RvB, it appears that those born abroad to US service members on orders are not eligible to the office where, some who argue, that those born on our soil product of illegal parents are.
    What is the litmus of reasonable? Our courts and SEC Clinton have recognized Vattel as pertinent to the respected question; “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.”
    Mexican NBC reflects paternal understanding. What is ours?

  • daddynoz

    Birthers have qualms on many different grounds, some are more nutty than others. Some content Obama born in Kenya or Canada (no conclusive proof given), some wonder based upon a fraudulent BC posted on his WH website (if true, more a criminal matter than constitutional), and there are the purists (Art II presidential eligibility intention).
    We live in a country of supreme court precedence/ In 1875 our court actually ruled upon the political rights of a woman based on her presidential eligibility. 20 years later, the same court determined that those born of legal residents are, indeed, citizens. In the latter half of the 20th century, it ruled that those born outside of the 14th are subject to our naturalization laws regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
    Cruz, McCain are without question ineligible for presidential office due being born outside the US. The question begs whether those born to illegal immigrants have more right to said office than those born abroad to service members. Those who wonder at Obama note that he was born a dual national to a person without any intent to naturalize.

    Mexicans have a clear definition of NBC. Those born on their soil to paternal foreigners will not enjoy their citizenship.
    Are we so inclusive regardless of common sense and separate from our own court precedence that such is not even considered worth discussion here? God, I hope not.

  • Conservative_Hippie

    K-Bob Conservative_Hippie Booker “The vetting should never stop. For anyone.  Even a long-time stalwart.”  -then we agree.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynozPatrickJColliano
    You wrote: “Birthers understand some born on our soil are inherent citizens, just not necessarily Art II presidential eligible.”
    Then that is a misunderstanding. You are either “natural born” or “naturalized.” If you gain citizenship by birth, you are natural born, and eligible per Article II, section 1.
    If you are a citizen of the United States, you’re either one or the other; there is NO OTHER type of citizen.
    There is no such class of citizen that acquires citizenship by birth but is not eligible to the Presidency.
    Let me give you a little background on Ankeny and Daniels v Governor of the State of Indiana. They were pro se litigants (meaning they represented themselves, without attorneys) who were not themselves attorneys, who sued to prevent the Governor of Indiana (Daniels) from submitting the electoral votes for Obama on the claim that Barack Obama could not be a natural born citizen. They also sought to prevent John McCain’s votes for being submitted for the same reason (although the reasons they used to support this claim were obviously different from Obama’s).
    The court warned them in advance that they would be making no charitable assumptions on their behalf, just because they were pro se litigants who were not lawyers. They would deal with them just as if they were represented by lawyers. If they made mistakes, they would stand on their own.
    And they made BIG mistakes. Mistakes not even you or I would make, not being lawyers. They claimed that the law prevented McCain and Obama, as Senators, from being appointed “Elector-in-Chief.” (They were apparently confusing the electors of the electoral college with the office of Presidency.
    And they claimed that neither one was a natural born citizen. Here’s a link to the case:
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
    And the three judge panel reasoned exactly the way I did, and based their decision on United States v Wong Kim Ark.
    And when addressing the claim that Obama could not be a natural born citizen because of the citizenship of his father as follows (with added emphasis):
    ‘Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [United States v] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” (Bottom of page 17 on the link I provided.)
    There is no distinction, none, between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “natural born citizen” as “someone born within the jurisdiction of a government.”  There is no reference to the citizenship of the parents. That’s just a birther lie.
    The Birther movement did have its beginnings with Hillary Clinton who merely raised the question of Obama’s eligibility. However, once she discovered that Obama was a natural born citizen, she dropped the issue. Republicans took it up, and they still own it.
    I found no liberals who claim that Cruz isn’t eligible.
    By the way, the court also noted that being born in the U.S. is not the ONLY way one can be considered a natural born citizen.
    From one of their footnotes:
    “We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.”
    This ruling of the Indiana Court of Appeals, by the way, has gained quite a bit of prominence among the courts. It was upheld by no less than TEN difference courts when deciding on the issue of ballot challenges. Including the Georgia Ballot Challenge, in which no one from Obama’s team even showed up.
    Judge Malihi ruled that the arguments for the citizenship of the parents as essential for a natural born citizen was “unpersuasive.” And he quoted the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling on Ankeny v Daniels and said he found it persuasive, and ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.

  • kssturgis62

    PatrickJColliano kssturgis62 Orangeone sDee daddynoz 
    yes your Definition of Natural Born is anyone born to anyone no matter where they were born as long as they are Considered or made US citizens. 
    do you see how dangerous you are in your assessments to this republic. That is exactly what you believe and it is shameful.

  • kssturgis62

    RickBulow kssturgis62 Orangeone sDee daddynoz Citizen at BIRTH IS NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. 
    IF IT WAS THE SAME THING the Writers of the Constitution would have left out the Natural Born Clause. Hilarious. 
    so I guess if Will and Kate had their baby in the USA that baby could grow up and be President. After all who cares if he is next in line to the throne of England, he was born here – Who cares if his father doesn’t have allegiance to the USA, he was born here, he is Natural born. Hey that is what you are saying about Rubio, Jindall, Haley, Cruz, Obama, Good going and you wonder why this country is falling apart.

  • Orangeone

    kssturgis62 PatrickJColliano Orangeone sDee daddynoz Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit.  A natural born citizen is one to an American whether mother or father.  You put women into slavery and tell us we have no rights.

  • Orangeone

    kssturgis62 RickBulow Orangeone sDee daddynoz Will and Kate are not US citizens.  Grow up. Ted Cruz is eligible to be president.

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJCollianodaddynozThen that is a misunderstanding. You are either “natural born” or “naturalized.”
     Yes, that is the misunderstanding. I would ask what constitutes naturalized and how liberal our views for those considered for presidential office.
    WKA gave us born citizens of lawfully resident to foreign nationals, commie douche-bags consider those born to illegal immigrants eligible for presidential office. If the 14th is the litmus, then the USSC RvB decision is pertinent;
    “But it [the first sentence of the
    Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by
    being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be
    regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the
    power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of
    naturalization.”
    Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional
    definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination
    of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United
    States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the
    jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not
    apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an
    American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth
    Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.”
    Where is the reasonable doubt? Where is the umbrage from foreign born Americans to military service members are not eligible for the considered office where anchor babies of illegal immigrants are?

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz PatrickJColliano I already told you, 8 U.S.C. section 1401, has this covered. If you are born outside the U.S. to one citizen parent who has lived in the U.S. for a total of at least five years, at least two of which were attained after the fourteenth birthday, you are a natural born citizen. So, if these military personnel are U.S. citizens who have lived in the U.S. for five years, at least two years after they turned fourteen years old, their kids are natural born citizens.

  • PatrickJColliano

    And just because someone recognizes that an anchor baby is  a natural born citizen, doesn’t mean that they’re douche bags.
    I understand that this is the law and that being born in the U.S. to an illegal alien still makes one a natural born citizen.
    Doesn’t mean I approve. In fact, I don’t approve at all. I want it stopped actually. I want to make it clear to these people, “No, you cannot jump our borders, drop a kid and suddenly get green cards for your entire family.”
    You enter this country legally, and preferably be at least on the path to citizenship, or your spawn is every bit the illegal alien that YOU are, and is subject to deportation.
    Just because people RECOGNIZE this as the law, it doesn’t mean we LIKE it, you know.
    The real douchebags in this picture are the ones who claim, “Duuuuuuh….dat’s not da law.”
    Yes, it is the law. And failing to recognize it won’t make this problem go away. It will simply allow this travesty to continue to happen, because MORONS will just keep right on claiming that it doesn’t happen.
    Do you know that there’s a birth tourism industry right now? There’s a business specially designed to allow pregnant women to come to this country, with hotels specially designed for them, to allow them to stay in this country until the kid is born, so they can have a natural born citizenship and easy access for the entire family?
    These bastards behind this industry are selling us out with this loophole. Flooding the country with aliens.
    But idiot-birthers are simply in denial. “Oh, dat can’t happen. You can’t be a alien and have a natural born citizen kid in dis country…dat’s not right. Duuuuuuuuuh…”
    Yes, it is right. Yes, it’s happening right now, even as you read this.

  • PatrickJColliano

    kssturgis62 PatrickJColliano Orangeone sDee daddynoz You don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s not my definition of natural born citizen. It’s the law’s definition. Anyone who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. That’s what the term means, and that’s all it’s ever meant.
    A naturalized citizen is someone who acquires their citizenship and must gain it after birth.
    What’s shameful is your ignorance.

  • PatrickJColliano

    kssturgis62RickBulowOrangeonesDeedaddynoz “Citizen at BIRTH IS NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. ”
    Yes, it is.
    And someone who must go through a legal process to become U.S. citizens are naturalized citizens.

  • PatrickJColliano

    sDee PatrickJColliano Actually, she was a very cowardly and boorish individual. She absolutely could not stand anyone disagreeing with her over the tiniest issue. Also she had massive control issues. She was an emotional wreck.
    I anticipate a nervous breakdown for her within five years.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz You’ve said a lot of things and most of them wrong.
    Regarding Minor v. Happersett, the issue was whether she could vote. Nothing was said about her presidential eligibility.
    United States v Wong Kim Ark ruled that those born in the U.S., whether residing in the U.S. or just passing through, are natural born citizens.
    Cruz and McCain are natural born citizens, per 8 U.S.C. section 1401. As are those born outside the U.S. to citizen parents. It’s there.

  • PatrickJColliano

    Orangeonekssturgis62sDeedaddynoz ” IMO Obama’s mother renounced citizenship when they moved and she
    married in Indonesia, a country that did not permit dual citizenship or
    educate noncitizens.”
    Parents cannot and never could renounce citizenship on behalf of their children. Even if Obama’s mother did renounce her citizenship, that does not and could not affect her son’s citizenship.
    Expatriation must be a personal decision, and minors cannot renounce U.S. citizenship unless they can convince a consulate that they understand what they’re doing, they want to do this, and are under no pressure from someone else to do this.
    I can’t see the President, at age six, convincing a U.S. consulate that he wants to renounce his U.S. citizenship.
    This is the problem I have with birthers. They don’t know something, so instead of checking their information, they just make up crap as they go along.
    “Duuuuuh…Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mama renounced hers…” Never mind that you have no proof that Obama’s mother renounced her citizenship. And that you got some stupid idea that parents can renounce citizenship for their children.

  • Orangeone

    PatrickJColliano Orangeone kssturgis62 sDee daddynoz When liberals have nothing they begin namecalling.  I am far from a birther and actually there is evidence that Barky’s mother was an Indonesian citizen when she married the latest guy. There is also evidence that Barky was in US schools as a foreign student.  Taken a math class lately?  It adds up.  And BTW, parents have rights to renounce citizenship of their minor children who can petition as adults for it to be reinstated just like they can move their children to another state or another country, change their children’s name and now change their gender on their birth certificate.

  • Orangeone

    RickBulow sDee Birther and common sense in the same post.  Bye-bye liberal.

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJColliano Regarding MvH; The court ruled on her Art II political rights instead of her petitioned 14th appeal; “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,…But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.”
    Decided her plea on what grounds?
    Her political rights were based on what?
     
    Regarding WKA; “It is true that Chinese persons born in China cannot be naturalized, like other aliens, by proceedings under the naturalization laws. But this is for want of any statute or treaty authorizing or permitting such naturalization, as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties and decisions upon that subject — always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution.”
    Was the child of a legal resident given our citizenship without comment on his presidential eligibility?
    Was the child explicitly determined an Art II “natural born citizen”?
    Douche, where is it written that those that are statutory born citizens are necessarily considered ‘”natural born”?
    Douche, why do folks like yourself insist that USC citizenship laws that permit citizenship at birth equate to an unquestionable understanding of “natural born”?
    Douche, do you not understand the difference between birth by naturalization (laws established by the congress) and that understood by our founders under the philosophy of natural law (i.e. Vattel)?

  • daddynoz

    Reality check for those that insist those merely 14th born in the US are natural born citizens;
    Rogers v. Bellei – 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
    “Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.”
    If the 14th is “natural born citizenship” litmus, then there is no possibility that Cruz and McCain are remotely eligible for the presidency. Were they born on our soil regardless of the citizenship of the parent(s)?
    Some, like myself, believe this court is wrong due ignorance of founder understanding of natural law philosophy and earlier courts’ appreciation of case law premised on such to include the use of Vattel in MvH and WKA.
    If RvB is the arbiter of 14th presidential eligibility, why are those born abroad to military service members not eligible and those born on our soil to illegal immigrants considered good candidates for the office?
    Welcome to the crazy world of birtherdom.

  • PogueMoran

    daddynoz Rogers V Bellei has no application to today.  The statute that stripped Bellei in this case was repealed by congress in 1978 making the entire case moot.  It has no application to the President or anyone else.

  • daddynoz

    PogueMoran daddynoz How does our Congress repeal a USSC opinion? Hasn’t worked for Roe v Wade,,,
    Please tell me more of your understanding.

  • PogueMoran

    daddynoz PogueMoran Did you bother reading the Rogers V Bellei case?  The Supreme Court interprets US law.  The whole basis for the decision was Section 301b of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.  That section was repealed by Congress in 1978.  Thus the case is now moot since the law has changed.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynozPatrickJColliano
    As the Supreme Court ruled in United States v Wong Kim Ark, the definition of “natural born” comes from English common law. Vattel and his work “Law of Nations” was not mentioned even once in the ruling.
    There is no such thing as a “statutory born citizen.” That is Mario Apuzzo’s lie. You are natural born or naturalized, period.
    Your ellipsis in your quote of Minor v Happersett removes the pertinent portion of the ruling. I don’t know whether you got this quote from somewhere, complete with ellipsis, or you’re removing this portion to mislead people. The “position” that the Court is referring to her “position” as a citizen of the United States.
    From Minor v. Happersett, including the portion that you or your source has deliberately omitted.
    “There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by
    the fourteenth amendment “all persons born or naturalized in the United
    States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are expressly declared
    to be “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
    reside.” But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give
    them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United
    States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United
    States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such
    citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a
    people.”
    Her “position” refers to her status as a citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court is saying that of course women are citizens, since they are “persons” as described in the fourteenth amendment, and are pointing out that women didn’t need to fourteenth to make them citizens.
    And for that matter, Vattel was not mentioned even once in Minor v. Happersett.
    On the contrary, the definition of citizenship, according to the Supreme Court, is common law:
    From Minor v. Happersett:
    “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.”
    Notice. Not Vattel. Not Law of Nations. Common law.
    And I’m doing my best to politely and thoroughly answer your questions. Which I don’t really need to do since the birthers have lost every single case they’ve tried and will continue to do so. Your personal attacks are uncalled for.

  • KenInMontana

    daddynoz Try it again without the disparaging references to feminine hygiene products, if you’re capable of it. If not don’t bother.

  • PatrickJColliano

    OrangeonePatrickJCollianokssturgis62sDeedaddynoz
    No, that is wrong. Parents do NOT have rights to renounce citizenship for their minor children. Citizenship is unique to the individual and parents cannot take away citizenship for their minor children.
    This is what makes birthers so irritating to me. They just make up crap as they go along.
    Here’s a travel site form the U.S. government. Notice what it says under F.
    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

    F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS

    Citizenship
    is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen.  Therefore, parents
    may not renounce the citizenship of their
    minor children.  Similarly, parents/legal
    guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are
    mentally incompetent.
     Minors seeking to renounce their U.S.
    citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting
    voluntarily
    and that they fully understand the
    implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S.
    citizenship.

  • Orangeone

    PatrickJColliano Orangeone kssturgis62 sDee daddynoz You have to look at the laws in effect then not today. We did not have the ADA, the FMLA then but we do today. Abortion was illegal then, not today.

  • PatrickJColliano

    Orangeone PatrickJColliano kssturgis62 sDee daddynoz
    And you STILL won’t stop making up crap as you go along! The Supreme Court decision Perkins v Elg, decided in 1939, ruled that parents cannot renounce citizenship for their minor children. And to support this, they cited incidents taken from the Presidential terms of Rutherford B. Hayes and Ulysses S. Grant.
    There was NEVER a time in U.S. history when parents could renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children.
    But, go ahead. Make up something else you want to be true. It’s all you birthers have.

  • daddynoz

    PogueMoran daddynoz Read my quote, again. It has to do with interpretation of the 14th, not applicable naturalization laws.
    Your ilk honestly believe that USC laws regarding citizenship somehow equate to natural born eligibility. Jesus, unbelievable.

  • Orangeone

    PatrickJColliano Orangeone kssturgis62 sDee daddynoz Take a look in the mirror and you will witness made up crap.  Do a little research.  There are many a court cases between 1939 and when the imposter’s mother renounced citizenship.  And according to your argument he would never have been a US citizen because you claim citizenship follows the father.  His was Kenyan with British citizenship.

  • daddynoz

    “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word
    ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation,
    and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the
    jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens
    of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth
    amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage
    was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship
    before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did
    not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a
    state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens
    of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.”
    Crazy dicta cited in 1894 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=154&invol=116
    Why do some fail to understand the MvH court intentionally refused to rule on Mrs. Minor’s plea premised on the 14th and rather decided her political rights on that of Art II presidential eligibility (i.e. “We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds,”)?
    Face it, some birthers have grounds for concern based on our highest court’s findings.

  • PatrickJColliano

    Orangeone PatrickJColliano kssturgis62 sDee daddynoz
    And STILL making up crap. I never claimed that citizenship followed the father. ANYONE born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, even if BOTH parents are aliens. And if born outside the U.S., per 8 U.S.C. section 1401, all it takes is ONE parent (EITHER one) who has lived in the U.S. for at least five years, at least two of which were attained after the fourteenth birthday.
    You’re the one who claimed that parents can renounce citizenship for their children. I’ve shown that they can’t. So, show me the law that says they can. I’ve already shown you the law and the court case (that draws upon precedent that dates back to the Presidential term of Ulysses S. Grant) that shows they CAN’T.
    Keep it coming! Make up some more CRAP!

  • daddynoz

    John Jay, Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th Amendment. Does anyone really study our history anymore?
    Is a child born, after the adoption of our constitution, of a foreign national father eligible for the United States Presidency?
    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
    The 14th found its permanence in the 1866 law; “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”.
    What we overlook is the relevance of 14th “jurisdiction” and “subject to any foreign power”. Obama, Cruz, and McCain were born with dual national obligations. Is this what our founders thought best for the single most powerful office in our republic?

  • daddynoz

    Thank you, Right Scoop!
    http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/2013/08/fun-at-right-scoop-vattel.html
    I’m worn out but grateful for the opportunity to speak my nutty birther viewpoint.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz There’s no such thing as 14th born. There are natural born citizen and naturalized citizens. Both are citizens. That’s why the 14th declares that both those who are natural born and naturalized are citizens.
    The 14th Amendment did not create a new class of citizens, only extended existing laws to the emancipated black people, after the appalling Dred Scott v Sandford decision, which  held that blacks could not be citizens, whether free or not.

  • PatrickJColliano

    Vattel was not used in Minor v Happersett or in United States v Wong Kim Ark. Both rulings held that the definition of natural born citizen came from English common law.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz That is completely incorrect, and I don’t mind adding, it was dishonest of your source, whatever it was, to present it that way. On the contrary, they ruled precisely on the basis they were requested. You really need to read these rulings for yourself and stop listening to people obviously bent on lying to you.
    Why do you think birthers have never won a single case? Is it because the entire judicial system is corrupt? Why are there less than five lawyers in the entire nation who support this garbage? Is it because every other lawyer in the United States is corrupt or afraid of Obama?
    From Minor v Happersett: “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, but this question is fairly
    made.”
    Notice, they decided to rule on the merits of her case just as she asked it. They said, “We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made.”
    So, in other words, they could decide upon whether she has the right to vote based upon other grounds, but the question was fairly made as it was. So, they are going to answer it as it was presented. Not upon “other grounds.”
    The Supreme Court was not trying to define Virginia Minor’s citizenship. They were determining whether or not the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gave her the right to vote.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz Gobbledegook. It’s as if this person read Wong Kim Ark and is trying to deny each individual point.
    Who are you going to believe? The source who just says things without a shred of evidence? Or the Supreme Court?
    He writes:
    “If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those
    who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the
    United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that
    Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born
    citizen.”
    We don’t like to say it. The Supreme Court said it:
    The Supreme Court (United States v. Wong Kim Ark):

    The Constitution of the United States, as originally
    adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and
    “natural-born citizen of the United States.” … The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of
    these words… In this as in other
    respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the
    principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of
    the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite/114/417, 422; Boyd v. United States, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite/116/616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite/124/465.
    The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be
    understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley,
    J., in Moore v. United States, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite/91/270, 274.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark: “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is
    necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the
    language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of
    its history.”
    I marvel at how thoroughly birthers are brainwashed. They cannot think critically at all. Any reasonable person reading this essay would ask themselves, “Okay, and what evidence does he have to support his opinions?”
    And would quickly realize that he has none.
    He makes a rather long-winded and lofty presentation, and birthers sit there and brainlessly lap up every word. Not once asking for proof of this. Just mindless lemmings, “Yes, that’s right. That’s exactly right.”
    I am able to prove what I say with evidence. I have the Supreme Court ruling right here, which I have read.
    Have you read Wong Kim Ark? Find me a single reference to Vattel or a single statement that suggests that the citizenship of the parents matters to someone born in the U.S.
    And here it is again: every child born in England, even to aliens was “natural born.” The U.S. observes “the same rule.”
    “…every child born in England of alien parents was a
    natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other
    diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile
    occupation of the place where the child was born.

    “III. The same rule was in force in all the English
    Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of
    Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to
    prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

  • RickBulow

    http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/

    This whole ordeal with Ted Cruz has been researched by Cafe Con Leche Republicans and they even agree that Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen, thereby blowing the birther theory out of the water

  • RickBulow

    And here is another post DEBINKING ALL BIRTHERS

    http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/birther-madness-2/

  • daddynoz

    RickBulow Some would argue that there is a distinct difference among those born citizens per our naturalization laws, the 14th, and those described per MvH.
    Those born abroad to an American parent are citizens at birth but only so due naturalization statute.
    Those born on our soil to foreigners are citizens at birth due the 14th.
    Those born on our soil to American parents are natural born per MvH. The real question is whether WKA answered “doubts” relevant to NBC…most think not, that the 1875 court only wondered who might be also be citizens at birth, regardless of the nationality of the parents.

    Merely born a citizen is not necessarily the litmus of natural born. To say otherwise is wishful thinking without any comprehension of our history.

  • RickBulow

    daddynoz Allow me to explain COMMON SENSE to you
    Citizen at birth equals NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
    Get a brain. Get a clue. Get a LIFE

  • daddynoz

    RickBulow daddynoz Use brain, got it.
    What is the inherent difference between a one year old that is naturalized when the parents naturalize and that of someone born abroad to American mother and a foreign national?
    Are you tracking that those naturalized are not eligible for the presidency?
    Are you tracking that the three criteria for the presidency are exclusive in nature?
    Are your tracking that the naturalization laws were never written to equate born citizens as natural born Art II? Not since the repeal of the 1795 Naturalization Act has someone born abroad, to an American father that previously resided in the United States, been considered as one natural born.

  • RickBulow

    daddynoz Birthers – ZERO for 400 in birther casxes

  • RickBulow

    daddynoz I have a brain, and done the research. You have no brain otherwise you would see that {bama is a natural born Citizen.

    Just stop lying

  • daddynoz

    RickBulow daddynoz Rick, yes you have a brain. Unfortunately it is mostly brain stem and short of frontal lobe.
    Some birthers are nuts.
    Some would like a discussion based on clear points of contention. 
    Speaking of lying, try harder at being honest with the facts at hand instead of the dismissive tact.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz RickBulow Then “some” are simply wrong. There is no other type of citizen. The Constitution recognizes “natural born” and “naturalized.” There is no provision in the main body of the Constitution or in any of the Amendments, for an additional type of citizen.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynozRickBulow I see no evidence that you’re interested in an honest debate, Daddynoz. I have explained several points on this board repeatedly, and you do not address them. You ignore them and relaunch the same argument.
    For instance, I have posted several times that, according to Wong Kim Ark, a person born in England is considered natural born, even if the parents are aliens and the U.S. observes “the same rule.”
    What can that mean, if it is not a clear statement that children born in the United States, even to aliens, is “natural born”?
    Here it is again. Can you address it? Or will you just run from it (again)?
    Please tell me what you think this means if not that a child born in the U.S., even to aliens, is considered a “natural born citizen.”
    From United States v Wong Kim Ark:

    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England
    for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this
    country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the
    dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the
    allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the
    power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every
    child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless
    the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State
    or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child
    was born.
    “III. The same rule was in force in all the English
    Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of
    Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to
    prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJColliano daddynoz RickBulow Good comment. Someone has separated naturalization law from that contained in our constitution. if we are speaking of that found in the founding document, there are two references that are pertinent; Art II as defined by MvH and the 14th defined by WKA. One gave us those born on our soil to American parents are eligible for the presidency; the latter the children of residents born on our soil, independent of the citizenship of the parents, are Americans.
    If the 14th and WKA are the litmus of the new definition of natural born, then RvB has relevance. But only if the 14th is, indeed, the new definition of NBC. Unfortunately, if it is then those born to illegal immigrants on our soil are eligible where those born to US service members abroad are not.
    Hard to reconcile.

  • RickBulow

    daddynoz PatrickJColliano Very easy to reconcile actually.

    like I said before. Either you are naturalized or natural born

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJColliano daddynoz RickBulow OK, were all English natural born subjects permitted to the same political rights depending on their birthright? The answer is no.
    Last I checked, the laws of England are not that of the United States regardless of heritage. Blackstone was thrown out when we declared our sovereignty.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz PatrickJColliano RickBulow Then you need to check again. Blackstone is referenced and upheld repeatedly in U.S. v WKA. Vattel is not referenced once. He is not even considered.
    So, you’re just saying that the United States v Wong Kim Ark is wrong? Last I checked, there has been NO attempt by Congress to overturn it or throw it out. No amendments made. Not even a law (although a law cannot overrule a SCOTUS decision).

  • CafeConLecheGOP

    The reason our constitution’s framers didn’t explicitly define natural born citizenship is that the term was widely understood to mean citizen at birth under common law. American common law is derived from English common law. Upon winning independence, each of the states embraced common law either in their state constitution or by passing a reception statute. Blackstone’s commentary is the gold standard on common law. From my blog  http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/: 
    “Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England, as amended by statute. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. Blackstone’s commentaries was the most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century.http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html
    The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
    However, Blackstone also recognizes natural born citizenship for subjects born abroad. English common law is comprised of precedents, court decisions, as amended by statutes.
    Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2 (passed in 1350). that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

  • PatrickJColliano

    CafeConLecheGOP What I find somewhat sad about these birthers is that you confront them with the evidence, and they just say it’s wrong. They believe what they want to believe. I posted the very quote from Wong Kim Ark which states that a child born in England, even to aliens, is considered natural born, and the U.S. observes “the same rule.”
    The response: We threw that out when we gained our Independence. The Supreme Court itself says that this is the standard that we live under. United States and England have the same definition of “natural born.”
    There is no court ruling that overturns Wong Kim Ark, no Constitutional Amendment. It’s just that we no longer live under that standard, just because these people who don’t want to believe it said so.

  • PogueMoran

    daddynoz PogueMoran Okay so you’re withdrawing your citation to Rogers V Bellei since it has no application to current law.  The 14th merely affirmed what already was understood that anyone born here regardless of their parents is a natural born citizen.  See William Rawle who was appointed by President Washington to be DA for Pennsylvania.  He was around during the founding father’s era: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.” 

    Place of birth is what matters.

  • daddynoz

    CafeConLecheGOPIf the first recourse of defense of American NBC is Blackstone over the precedent given by our very own supreme court, then your argument is lost.
    MvH echoed Vattel in stating; “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,”.
    Vattel; “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.”
    Why is it so difficult that you wonder that some birthers not fixated on a BC have qualms?

  • RickBulow

    daddynoz CafeConLecheGOP is spot on with his remarks. He has done RESEARCHED it and DEBUNKED you.

    NOW, name one case that the birthers have won if you can.

  • daddynoz

    RickBulow daddynoz CafeConLecheGOP  The case won is my opinion regardless of those who fail to honestly wonder.
    The cases lost are due to folks much like yourself; politically spineless, civics uninformed and afraid of low information peer consideration. You and the courts are afraid of being considered racist and cause for a consequent race riot.
    Coward. Your history is rife with fellow Americans willing to put principle before personal welfare. You and your ilk are absolute cowards.

  • RickBulow

    daddynoz RickBulow CafeConLecheGOP Again. ZERO for 400 are you and your birther ilk. COMMON SENSE is 400 and 0 against Birthers.

    you have just been OWNED

  • daddynoz

    RickBulow daddynoz CafeConLecheGOP 
    If owned, what are you makong for dinner. I’d like macaroni and cheese with whatever you have in mind. 
    It isn’t a sin to be worn down by fellow Americans insistent on stupid. 
    You prefer that the office be open to everyone merely considered a born citizen per our naturalization laws…me, not to so much. 
    I realize that those naturalized are not eligible to include those perhaps politically right for the office, yet descriminate on principle.
    You could care less who is considered eligible on principle or otherwise. Still a coward.

  • RickBulow

    daddynoz”Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” — Sam Adams

    PatrickJColliano PogueMoran CafeConLecheGOP and I had brought the FACTS in on this. No matter what your wishes are, they fail to stand up to the facts which KNOWLEDGEABLE people like us had brought forth.

    And I will say it once more so it sinks in. COMMON SENSE is 400 for 400 in Obama eligibility cases, while BIRTHERS are 0 (that is ZERO) for 400 in Obama eligibility cases.

    I do not like Obama, but he is eligible, and so are Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, and Bobby Jindal.

  • daddynoz

    RickBulow daddynoz PatrickJColliano PogueMoran CafeConLecheGOP 
    Hmmm, facts. Interesting. The fact that McCain and Cruz are not eligible for the same reason that Obama is per the 14th?
    Which facts are we to consider acceptable?
    Me, I’d like to stick with equal opportunity hater context that only those born on our soil to American parents seems reasonable.
    You want to see everyone that your conscience will allow, acceptable to the presidency.Unfortunately such is ridiculous and exclusive of Americans that undeniably ineligible.
    Good for you. Not very smart, but have a big retarded heart.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynozRickBulowPatrickJCollianoPogueMoranCafeConLecheGOP “Me, I’d like to stick with equal opportunity hater context that only
    those born on our soil to American parents seems reasonable.”
    It might seem reasonable, but, alas, the evidence does not agree. The problem with discussing this with you is that you don’t do your own research. You rely entirely upon what someone has told you, and if it makes sense, sounds good to you, etc., you accept it without question.
    I freely admit, the idea that two illegals can jump the border, and have a child that will, in 35 years, be eligible to be President of the United States (assuming he retains his citizenship) seems counterintuitive, even ridiculous. But that’s the way it is.
    None of us are claiming that McCain and Cruz are ineligible while Obama is eligible. They’re all eligible.
    And you wouldn’t be the only one who thinks this, either. Judge Morrow, who ruled on Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship in the Northern District Court of California also agrees with that citizenship following the citizenship of the parents made more sense.
    From In re: Wong Kim Ark,” as decided by the District Court of Northern California.
    “The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents,and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority. It may be that the executive departments of the government are at liberty to follow this international rule in dealing with questions of citizenship which arise between this and other countries, but that fact does not establish the law for the courts in dealing with persons within our own territory. In this case the question to be determined is as to the political status and rights of Wong Kim Ark under the law in this country.”
    He does agree that the doctrine of the law of nations is more sound, as he says. Unfortunately, he cannot overrule the Supreme Court, which had already established the precedent in the Look Tin Sing case.
    When the Supreme Court took the case, Chief Justice Fuller also agreed with you.
    He noted that since the Fourteenth Amendment did not specifically grant citizenship to those born abroad to citizen parents, he concluded that if SCOTUS is correct in their decision, then children born abroad to citizen parents must be aliens, and he concludes in his dissenting opinion:
    “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the
    Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that
    “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical
    tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and
    that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while
    passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or
    whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the
    Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJColliano daddynoz RickBulow PogueMoran CafeConLecheGOP Hooray, another argument for 14th citizenship. Thanks.
    How about something that regards the select and proper that are considered for presidential eligibility?
    You want the children of illegal immigrants considered while those born to military service persons are not…got it.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynozPatrickJCollianoRickBulowPogueMoranCafeConLecheGOP
    Not true. 8 U.S.C. section 1401 says they are.
    If you’re a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, you’re natural born or naturalized. There is no other type of citizen.
    That’s really what you’re going to try to convince yourself? That EVERY court in the country is presided over by a coward. That every person who believes that Obama is a natural born citizen is a coward, afraid of being called a racist?
    Wow. I’ve heard of people who would go to extremes to avoid admitting they’re wrong, but you’re in a league all by yourself.
    From Ankeny and Kruse v Governor of the State of Indiana, notice, they base their decision on Wong Kim Ark, the Court decision you refuse to read:
    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
    At this point, I’m inclined to believe that deep down, you know you’re wrong. That’s why you refuse to read the court cases for yourself. You don’t want to admit, even to yourself, that you know the truth.

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJCollianodaddynozRickBulowPogueMoranCafeConLecheGOP
    “Not true. 8 U.S.C. section 1401 says they are.”
    Thank God,  we concluded our conversation. See, you believe that naturalization law determines NBC. You’re someone that is so horribly confused by the matter it is now worth beyond discussion.
    And when I say “horribly confused”, I mean retarded beyond belief. Sorry.

  • PatrickJColliano

    But still, there’s a kind of solace in saying that it’s just because every judge in the country is a coward afraid of being called a racist. And every person who knows that birthers are liars are similarly just cowards.
    This way, if the Supreme Court ever hears one of these stupid lawsuits and rule in our favor, you can just tell yourself. “The Supreme Court  is run by a bunch of cowards.” It’s easier to just tell yourself that everyone in the world is a coward. The alternative is having to admit you’re wrong.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz PatrickJColliano RickBulow PogueMoran CafeConLecheGOP
    The Constitution recognizes only two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized. There is no provision for a third type in the Constitution. Therefore, everyone who is a citizen of the United States MUST belong to one of those two categories. And since a person who is a citizen at birth did not go through a process of naturalization, they must be natural born. There’s no other alternative.
    You know you’re wrong, too. It’s just too hard for you to admit.

  • daddynoz

    PatrickJColliano daddynoz RickBulow PogueMoran CafeConLecheGOP  
    Two types of citizenship? Did you find this truth from WKA and MvH reflection on the 14th? If so, why isn’t RvB relevant? If the 14th is paramount, then we must find Cruz and McCain foreign born status as ineligible to the presidential office.
    Or are we only adhering to the facts we desperately want to believe? 
    Cowards.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz PatrickJColliano RickBulow PogueMoran CafeConLecheGOP
    Well, now that you ask, I do believe that’s what you’re doing. Desperately adhering to non-facts you want to believe are facts.
    And I already told you, the Constitution recognizes only two types of citizenship. No amendment produced another type, therefore, there are only two types of citizen.
    As I said, I’ve read Minor v. Happersett. You haven’t. And you’re not going to. I’ve read United States v Wong Kim Ark. You haven’t. You’re not going to.
    It’s already been explained to you why RvB is no longer relevant. It is the job of the courts, among other things, to interpret the law. The law that the court was interpreting in that case has been repealed. Why do you think a court ruling on a repealed law is relevant?

  • daddynoz

    Two schools of thought seem to previal;
    1. That anyone born at birth per our STATUTORY citizenship laws are to be considered natural born citizens.
    2. And those that think anyone who believes “statutory” citizensm empowered by the congress to naturalize, are somehow unquestionably eligible for the presidency…stupid understanding, but some believe this.
    Agree to disagree. I thought there was more to consider…the 14th and WKA, I guess not.

  • PogueMoran

    daddynoz The 14th amendment isn’t a statute.

  • PogueMoran

    daddynoz CafeConLecheGOP Except Vattel never used the phrase natural born citizen.  He used naturels or indegenes none of which could properly be translated as natural born citizen.  The French phrase is citoyen de naissance.  Parens in the french language is also commonly understood to mean blood relative.  So no Vattel isn’t supported by a voting rights case.

  • PogueMoran

    daddynoz RickBulow CafeConLecheGOP Naturalization laws have nothing to do with born citizens.

  • PatrickJColliano

    daddynoz Well, that’s the definition of “natural born” according to common law.
    Let’s bring out Wong Kim Ark again.
    First, we establish that “natural born” is defined by English common law.

    The Constitution of the United States, as originally
    adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and
    “natural-born citizen of the United States.” …
    The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of
    these words, … In this as in other
    respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the
    principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of
    the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite/114/417, 422; Boyd v. United States, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite/116/616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite/124/465.
    The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be
    understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley,
    J., in Moore v. United States, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite/91/270, 274.
    Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of
    the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in
    1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being
    printed below in italics:
    …”Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject
    to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the
    nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a
    natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.
    So, the Supreme Court has determined that “natural born” is to be defined in English common law. And “natural born” subject simply means someone who has become a subject at the moment of birth.
    Ergo, a natural-born citizen means someone who has gained citizenship at the moment of birth.

  • RickBulow
  • PatrickJColliano

    The video quotes Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center as saying that “as long he qualifies as a United States citizen at birth, which he does by law, then that makes him a natural born citizen.”
    But of course, some people would just say that he’s lying, because he’s such a coward who’s afraid of being perceived as a racist.