Topic: List of potential GOP nominees category .....Establishment, Anti-, or both?

[Pandora]

"Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase."

Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen."

Yeah, "consensus" since when, 2007?

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

Note "person" singular, "parents" plural.

[Pandora]

William Jacobson looked at various sources but came to a different conclusion than I, yet includes this in his analysis:

CHARLES GORDON, in his analysis, points to an almost contemporaneous Act of Congress which suggests that the use of  “natural born Citizen” was consistent with the plain reading of the text, as arising from birth even abroad, WHO CAN BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: THE UNRESOLVED ENIGMA, 28 Maryland Law Review 1 (1968):

        And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States…  shall be considered as natural-born citizens : Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.64

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/

Think first of the principle contained in the requirement: the Founders wanted to keep any foreign influence through birth out of the office of the highest executive.

[Pandora]

http://www.resonoelusono.com/naturalborncitizen.htm



eta: RTWT

[warpmine]

Neither Cruz nor Jindal are eligible.

After Obama, my 6 yo is eligible. The rule of law, constitutional law, is err dead.

[warpmine]

http://www.resonoelusono.com/naturalborncitizen.htm



eta: RTWT

Of course, you're correct, the FOunders used the language and definitions of their day which was as those aforementioned had stated, natural born = born of two citizen parents at the time of birth of child. Obama wasn't hatched from two us citizen parents and it doens't matter if he were born, sorry, hatched in Lincoln's bedroom, only one parent was born here and she never lived here for the required five year stint after the age of 18. Obama ,  therefore is a usurper.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

I can only find two statuses of citizenship. Natural born, or naturalized.  One is either naturally born as a citizen, as there is no serious debate about either man, or one is naturalized by a lawful process. 

Which status do you claim applies to either of these men? Or do you claim the third status of not being a citizen at all? In which case they cannot lawfully serve in their current offices, right?

[warpmine]

I can only find two statuses of citizenship. Natural born, or naturalized.  One is either naturally born as a citizen, as there is no serious debate about either man, or one is naturalized by a lawful process. 

Which status do you claim applies to either of these men? Or do you claim the third status of not being a citizen at all? In which case they cannot lawfully serve in their current offices, right?

The reason nobody is splain'in is becasue the left doesn't want any concerned having knowledge or instantly recognize that Obamaov is a usurper, ineligible as President. If he were declared a usurper, those that set him up would be guilt as he is including those in both parties that were complicit in the scam. It would also negate every policy and EO and SCOTUS and regular judicial appointments as well as appointments in every other facet of the govt. Can you imagine the constitutional crisis?

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

To clear up any confusion, the quote there is actually from 104
FIRST
CONGRESS.
SESS.
II.
Cn.
3.
1790.

Not chapter four. The page designations make it difficult since chapter 3 is continued on the page where chapter four begins and holds the title spot on the page. This is not entirely relevant since the law cited here was repealed and replaced in 1795.
We also have the issue of President Chester A. Arthur, whose father was not an American citizen, but whose mother was, who also has served as President. The issue was discussed, but carried no weight then either.

[Pandora]

Chester Arthur's father was a British citizen, a fact lied about by Arthur, which he intended to keep hidden in that he ordered his papers destroyed after his death.  He knew he defrauded the country, and that if his birth circumstance was known at the time, he'd not have been eligible, so, no, the issue was not discussed at the time.

[Pandora]

To clear up any confusion, the quote there is actually from 104
FIRST
CONGRESS.
SESS.
II.
Cn.
3.
1790.

Not chapter four. The page designations make it difficult since chapter 3 is continued on the page where chapter four begins and holds the title spot on the page. This is not entirely relevant since the law cited here was repealed and replaced in 1795.
We also have the issue of President Chester A. Arthur, whose father was not an American citizen, but whose mother was, who also has served as President. The issue was discussed, but carried no weight then either.

Link?

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

Okay, I think I figured it out. the (S) was enclosed differently originally. []


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795

Naturalization Act of 1795
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Declaration of Intention for Albert Einstein.

The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen. The Act specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for "free white person(s)." It also changed the requirement in the 1790 Act of "good character" to read "good moral character."

Contents

    1 Pre-1795
    2 Provisions
    3 Post-1795
    4 External links

Pre-1795

Before 1795, immigration law was governed primarily by the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Provisions

Immigrants intending to naturalize had to go to their local court and declare their intention at least three years prior to their formal application. In the declaration, the immigrant would also indicate his understanding that upon naturalization, he would take an oath not only of allegiance to the United States but also of renunciation of his former sovereign.

In addition to the declaration of intention and oath of renunciation, the 1795 Act required all naturalized persons to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States" and be "well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."
Post-1795

The Act of 1795 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which itself was repealed in 1802.

http://immigration.about.com/od/usimmigrationhistory/a/Natur_History.htm

The more I research the more confusion there is.  Laws are passed, and repealed all the time in our early history so citing a law that old requires careful attention to know if it still applies.  Nothing appears as clear cut now as then, but it is pretty clear what the courts will hold.  Chester A. Arthur, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, and Bobby Jindal will not be excluded from the presidency by the courts, because they were born natural citizens. There are only two states of citizenship and they were never naturalized as they did not have to be.

[Pandora]

The replacement in 1795 of the 1790 act said nothing in respect to what was highlighted in my link, rather discussed the naturalization process.

And I don't consider wiki definitive, so get your cites from a more reputable source, if you please.

As to Chester Arthur, simply stating that since he was president, a precedent was set, is wrong.  I told you, he lied, covered up the truth, and it wasn't discovered until after his death.  He can't be excluded because he *was* President, but that doesn't change the fraud nor alter the requirements.  See http://www.resonoelusono.com/naturalborncitizen.htm

And if natural born doesn't mean what it means, why has Congress tried to change the eligibility requirements about eight times since 1975?

Finally, please close your underline strike tag.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

Law of nations has absolutely no impact on US law/ US law does. Neither does a Senate RESOLUTION. The US Constitution does. Court precedent does, and even common understanding does, but not resolutions or the laws of other nations. It may well have influenced the writers of the Constitution, as many documents did, including the Magna Carta, the Bible, Roman Law, etc....but I would not cite ANY of those to justify changing the known understanding of law. Precedent has established value though, and I do think it worthy of consideration. It WILL be considered and applied by almost any court in the land. The weight given precedent may be in question, but that it will be weighed is not a question.

Natural born does mean what it means and of course can mean nothing else. Any attempt to redefine it this long afterwards, short of changing the law, is not worthy of consideration and I have given it far too much consideration today. I have spent a great deal of time chasing rabbit trails today and have found nothing to change the facts as I see them. There are ONLY two states of citizenship. Natural born or Naturalized. There is a defined process for non-citizens to undergo before they can become naturalized citizens. I leave it to reasoning beings to consider for themselves which Senator Cruz and Governor Jindal are for themselves and let it reflect in their votes, but I have made my assessment and it was not remotely difficult when all facts were considered. I do not think the courts or most citizens will have trouble with the concept. I feel great certainty that if either man were elected, no court would find them ineligible.

The underline strike tag request makes no sense to me, as I did not intentionally use the strike command, so it will require further explanation for me to understand what went wrong. I see that something has gone wrong, but I do not understand what.  If I have typos that have caused confusion I ask forgiveness, but I do not see where they are and so cannot correct them. Perhaps it was in the copied and pasted text? However that occurred, I assure you it was unintentional.  I will try to go back and use the edit function and see if I can figure it out on my own.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

Okay, Pan. I figured out that strike-through problem. it was in the original and was not intentional. I think it is corrected now.

[Pandora]

Law of nations has absolutely no impact on US law/ US law does.

Point missed.  I used the cite as a reference to the Chester Arthur situation, that's all.

Too bad for you about the rabbit trails.

[Libertas]

Neither Cruz nor Jindal are eligible.

After Obama, my 6 yo is eligible. The rule of law, constitutional law, is err dead.

After the Corrupt Obama-McCain Bargain just about any goddamned piece of crap can run for POTUS and be sworn in to be the next tyrant!!!

Yee haa, ain't that just swell?!?!?!

 

Bottom Line - Cruz and Jindal are by strict constitutional definition ineligible, but as has been discussed in great detail here and elsewhere, precedents have been set to purposely ignore those proscriptions in favor of a more enlightened and progressive understanding of the concept swirling about the qaint issue of eligibility, so...all those of us in the strict constructionist camp can do is say "just because someone or some legislation may rule or say something wrong is right doesn't make it right or constitutional" while the latter day citizens of empire go and do whatever anyway...

In the end it will all come out in the...blood...

[warpmine]

Neither Cruz nor Jindal are eligible.

After Obama, my 6 yo is eligible. The rule of law, constitutional law, is err dead.

After the Corrupt Obama-McCain Bargain just about any goddamned piece of crap can run for POTUS and be sworn in to be the next tyrant!!!

Yee haa, ain't that just swell?!?!?!

 

Bottom Line - Cruz and Jindal are by strict constitutional definition ineligible, but as has been discussed in great detail here and elsewhere, precedents have been set to purposely ignore those proscriptions in favor of a more enlightened and progressive understanding of the concept swirling about the qaint issue of eligibility, so...all those of us in the strict constructionist camp can do is say "just because someone or some legislation may rule or say something wrong is right doesn't make it right or constitutional" while the latter day citizens of empire go and do whatever anyway...

In the end it will all come out in the...blood...

We have a winner!

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/26/cruz_at_cpac_2015_hillary_clinton_embodies_the_corruption_of_washington.html

This speech was pretty good, in my opinion. I know some here oppose this man, but he spoke truth and I appreciated it.

[Alphabet Soup]

I know some here oppose this man, but he spoke truth and I appreciated it.

There's a red-meat quote if I ever saw one ;')

My opposition to dhimmicrats is deep, abiding, and enduring as the day is long. My opposition to various pubbies is contextual. In the context of "good guys" who happen to be Republican, I would place Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ben Carson. I believe them to all be honorable men.

In the context of potential Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential race Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are not only at the top of my list - they are the list.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

Not incredibly meaningful, but here are the CPAC polls results:
Percent Candidate

25.7            Sen. Rand Paul
21.4            Gov. Scott Walker
11.5            Sen. Ted Cruz
11.4            Dr. Ben Carson
8.3             Former Gov. Jeb Bush
4.3             Former Sen. Rick Santorum
3.7             Sen. Marco Rubio
3.5             Donald Trump
3.0             Carly Fiorina
2.8             Gov. Chris Christie
1.1             Former Gov. Rick Perry
0.9             Gov. Bobby Jindal
0.8             Former Gov. Sarah Palin
0.3             Former Gov. Mike Huckabee
0.3             Former Ambassador John Bolton
0.1             Sen. Lindsey Graham
0.1             Former Gov. George Pataki

1.0             Undecided
0.7             Other

(3,007 votes cast Feb. 25-27 at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Conducted by the Polling Company Inc./WomenTrend)

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/28/cpac-2015-see-the-full-straw-poll-results/#ixzz3T5GtN5qS
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Bear in mind that Rand Paul always wins, because the smaller percentage of his people actually turn out, but they have historically not much affected elections.

This looks like a win among the active conservatives for Governor Walker to me, and a repudiation of Bush. (He bussed in supporters and his results still bit the dust.)



Be