Trouble For Ted Cruz: Here's Why He Doesn't Meet The Natural Born Citizen Requirement

[Steve_McGarrett]

McGarrett Talks Ignorant Smack Again

The United States does not recognize dual citizenship in any event.

Another lie. The U.S. does recognize dual citizenship. Stop obfuscating!

Is Dual Citizenship Allowed in the United States?
Is Dual Citizenship Allowed in the United States? | Legal Language Services

Dual Citizenship in the United States

Dual citizenship had previously been banned in the United States, but the US Supreme Court struck down most laws forbidding dual citizenship in 1967.

Cruz, for example, is not a citizen of Canada as far as Congress is concerned. He is a citizen of the United States. Period.

U.S. citizens don't have birth certificates from a foreign sovereignty unlike Ted Cruz who does. He was not born in any jurisdiction of the U.S..

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More Stupidity in the face of the Obvious

M.D. Rawlings, stop your continous lies that the U.S. does not officially recognize dual citizenship. It does and here is confirmation of it:

US Dual Citizenship

Dual Nationality

Dual Citizenship: The U.S. government allows dual citizenship. United States law recognizes U.S. Dual Citizenship, but the U.S. government does not encourage it is as a matter of policy due to the problems that may arise from it. It is important to understand that a foreign citizen does NOT lose his or her citizenship when becoming a U.S. citizen. An individual that becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization may keep his or her original citizenship. However, as some countries do not recognize dual citizenship, it is important to consider it carefully before applying for U.S. citizenship

Claptrap! Ignorance! Bull! Trash talk! Gibberish! Nonsense!

Read it again......................The U.S. government allows dual citizenship. United States law recognizes U.S. Dual Citizenship

You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About.

Your entire edifice is predicated on the lame-brained notion that citizenship and nationality are universally synonymous in terms of allegiance. Hence, you argue that persons duly born abroad of U.S. citizens cannot be natural-born citizens (even though U.S. citizenship is conferred upon them at the moment of birth ) because such persons are necessarily born into a state of citizenship that entails a duality of national allegiance . . . according to U.S. constitutional and statutory law.

False. Ignorance. Gibberish. Idiocy. Nonsense. Utter stupidity.

The edifice of constitutional citizenship and nationality rests on the philosophical construct of territorial-hereditary allegiance as derived from Roman and British common law (though slightly modified originally, i.e., before the Court in Wong Kim Ark subverted it).

Congress does not recognize dual citizenship in the sense that you think the author of this article is talking about at all.

Does Congress officially recognize the realities of international law concerning dual citizenship, including the obvious fact that foreign nations may confer citizenship on U.S. citizens at the moment of their births or subsequent to the moment of their births abroad?

Of course it does. Duh.

Does Congress officially recognize the citizenship conferred upon U.S. citizens by foreign countries abroad in terms of national allegiance?

No!

Of course it doesn't. Duh.

It never has, particularly in the case of natural-born citizens by jus soli (the law of the soil) or by jus sanquinus (the law of the bloodline) . . . unless, of course, they voluntarily renounce their U.S. citizenship and thereby declare their allegiance to another country, though no minor can lose or renounce his U.S. citizenship.

In a world where dual citizenship is as common as your intellectual dishonesty and rabid stupidity, in what other sense of recognition would I be talking about citizenship relative to the imperatives of the Natural Born Citizen Clause?

In what other sense of recognition would the author of the article you cited be talking about citizenship, given that she correctly points out the fact that the United States requires one to renounce all former allegiances before one may become a U.S. citizen?

*crickets chirping*

All one has to do in order to recognize the fact that you obviously do not grasp the realities of international citizenship and nationality relative to the construct of allegiance under U.S. constitutional and statutory law is to note the fact that George Romney (born in Mexico), Lowell Weicker (born in France) and John McCain (born in Panama) were all certified to be natural-born citizens by Congress and by the State Department.

The only one you're fooling is yourself.

 

[Statistikhengst]

(all but the relevant part snipped)

I keep clicking on your stuff in hopes that you've finally found a link for those quotes in your sig line that I asked you for a source on, like a week ago.

Don't tease me bro...

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

though no minor can lose or renounce his U.S. citizenship.

.

Yes, the state department has a avenue for minors who want to renounce their citizenship. Stop obfucscating.

http://travel.state.gov/content/tra...aws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

Renunciation of U.S. Nationality

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.

 

[hunarcy]

Sigh ...what Cruz does appeal to is that segment of the population that is stuck in early adolescence..that demands freedom without concomitant responsibility..that whines and throws tantrums when it doesn't get it's way..that won't take out the garbage and strive to keep our environment clean and infrastructure working...yet demands a bigger allowance via reckless tax cuts...that believes that threats and complaining are all they need to contribute as citizens...
...and he plays those fools like an orchestra of dysfunction.
Since most of the voting public are actually grown ups...the likes of Cruz will never be elected prez...regardless of his birth status.


* * * *

Except that Cruz has never advocated for freedom WITHOUT responsibility. Your premise itself is, not surprisingly, false. Imagine you being dishonest to make a petty liberal pointless. Why, that kind of thing hasn't happened since your previous posts.

Indeed, it's the fact that Cruz links the freedom and responsibility that sets you lolberals off.

Responsibility like shutting down the government and costing tax payers millions for no real reason?

ALL the Government shut downs would have been avoided if Congress had passed a budget.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

though no minor can lose or renounce his U.S. citizenship.

.

Yes, the state department has a avenue for minors who want to renounce their citizenship. Stop obfucscating.

Renunciation of U.S. Nationality

Renunciation of U.S. Nationality

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.

Take your accusations of dishonesty and shove 'em.

Unlike you, if I'm shown to be wrong about something, I have absolutely no problem with being improved . . . but the fact of the matter is that I merely misremembered that pertinent detail. There are many such details in statutory and case law, as there are many circumstances under which a minor cannot lose his citizenship, but an adult can.

By the way, the matter is correctly stated in the works on my blog written some years ago. I know because I checked to make sure. In other words, I knew that, but had forgotten about that exception.

The issues of citizenship and nationality law are circumstantially numerous and complex, as well as being subject to change. Prior to historically recent changes in the code, a minor could not renounce his citizenship, and of course a minor's citizenship cannot be directly lost or revoked based on any action of a minor's parent(s) or guardian(s).

Fine.

Unlike you, I do care if I'm saying something that's incorrect. But talking about minors, that is a minor detail of no significance to the points being made.

On the other hand, while you incessantly call others liars, we have you making false claims virtually every time you open your trap on this thread, beginning with your stupid thesis, of course, and including your latest attempt to jam that absurdity into an article that on two major points you clearly do not correctly understand at all!

We have you stupidly confusing the distinction between what Congress allows, mostly as a matter of silence, by the way, and what it officially recognizes in terms of nationality; and we have you stupidity (1) confusing citizenship in terms of international law and (2) citizenship in terms of allegiance under constitutional and statutory law.

But have you acknowledge these obvious errors in your reading of that article? Hell no!

Have I made any major errors, let alone any other errors whatsoever aside from this bit of minutia? Hell no!

We're still waiting for you to acknowledge the fact that Congress and the State Department have certified the natural-born status of three presidential candidates who were indisputably born abroad and conferred citizenship at birth via congressional jus sanguinus (the law of the bloodline)! You know, that which you claim to be a constitutionally third kind of citizenship, i.e., "statutory citizenship," which of course is technically true in terms of methodology. . . .

But if what you say is true about its essence, in the face of the biographical facts regarding the life and times of these three persons, how could this be?

And what about that nonsense of yours in which you tried jam your absurd thesis into Rep. John Bingham's astute observation about the Fourteenth Amendment relative to the construct of natural-born citizenship? You never answered my post.

Recall:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...t-the-natural-born-citizen-requirement-9.html


The answer to your questions and mine, Einstein: The parents (plural) he was alluding to include the blood of the nation relative to the prevailing law of jus sanguinus in 1866, not to any iteration of that principle in terms of plural parentage anywhere in the Constitution, let alone in the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Since 1934 the blood of nation has been predicated on parent/parents! Further, the only persons at that time (i.e., before Wong Kim Ark) that would have been born on U.S. soil, yet, nevertheless, would have emerged from the womb outside the territorial jurisdiction or the jurisdictional allegiance of the United States for constitutional purposes would have been the offspring of native Indians, foreign residents of America, and diplomats/attachés officially assigned to America by foreign powers.

Why?

Because such persons carried their foreign nationality and allegiance within them. They were not of the blood or of the soil of the nation, and the United States did not confer birthright citizenship before Wong Kim Ark.

Dingbats like you who count yourselves to be conservatives would do the same thing that leftist judges tried to do during the 60's and 70's: reckon the citizenship of persons born on U.S. soil of foreigners—both legal and illegal, for crying out loud!—to be of greater value than that conferred on persons duly born abroad of the blood of the nation—parent(s) with a duly established claim on the soil of the nation!

Yeah. That's the ticket! That makes sense! Bonehead.

There are not and has never been three categories of citizenship under constitutional law. There are only two: (1) natural-born citizenship and (2) naturalized citizenship, and persons duly born abroad of U.S. citizens ain't the latter.

I've got some more lessons to tech you concerning your misunderstandings on this post with which you graced us too:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-born-citizen-requirement-10.html#post8976170

Just like you didn't rightly grasp what the author in the above article is telling you, you didn't rightly grasp what the good professor in the videos you embedded is telling you.

You're a complete disaster. Once again, the only one you're fooling is yourself.

But you'll have to be patient. I'm currently engaged in two other heavy discussions on this board.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

though no minor can lose or renounce his U.S. citizenship.

.

Yes, the state department has a avenue for minors who want to renounce their citizenship. Stop obfucscating.

Renunciation of U.S. Nationality

Renunciation of U.S. Nationality

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.

We're still waiting for you to acknowledge the fact that Congress and the State Department have certified the natural-born status of three presidential candidates who were indisputably born.

Where is your proof that Congress and the State Department certified the NBC status of the other two candidates unlike McCain who was presumed a NBC by non-binding Senate Resolution 511 being born to two U.S. Citizen parents (plural) in U.S. jurisdiction?

As for why Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Obama are not eligible for Article 2 Section 1, Here is a respected Constitutional scholar/attorney with outstanding credentials that describes what a true natural born Citizen is that the founders had in mind to meet the requirements of Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause. He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Pay close attention and listen to both parts of what he has to say M.D. Rawlings. You might learn something. Both parts combined are just 6 minutes.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

McGarrett Talks Ignorant Smack Again

Another lie. The U.S. does recognize dual citizenship. Stop obfuscating!

Is Dual Citizenship Allowed in the United States?
Is Dual Citizenship Allowed in the United States? | Legal Language Services

Dual Citizenship in the United States

Dual citizenship had previously been banned in the United States, but the US Supreme Court struck down most laws forbidding dual citizenship in 1967.

Cruz, for example, is not a citizen of Canada as far as Congress is concerned. He is a citizen of the United States. Period.

U.S. citizens don't have birth certificates from a foreign sovereignty unlike Ted Cruz who does. He was not born in any jurisdiction of the U.S..

Enough! Your thesis is predicated on citizenship in terms of national allegiance. I'm not arguing against citizenship in terms of international law proper, but in terms of constitutional law with regard to the construct of the Natural Born Citizen Clause and statutory law with regard to citizenship by jus sanguinis, you poor soul.

Are you or are you not arguing your thesis from the premise of national allegiance?

Never mind. That's a rhetorical question. Of course you are . . . except when you aren't; i.e., when that doesn't work, you, without warning, shift to the premise of citizenship in terms of international law proper.

But of course that only gets you into more trouble, causes you to contradict yourself further. You've already acknowledge the fact of citizenship at birth conferred on those born abroad of U.S. citizens . . . what you call "statutory citizenship" in essence as a third kind of citizenship. Remember?

So saying that "U.S. citizens don't have birth certificates from a foreign sovereignty unlike Ted Cruz who does", as you do, is not only factually wrong, but contradictory. Right? Canada grants birthright citizenship. Right?

He was not born in any jurisdiction of the U.S..

Prove it against the facts I've put up against your tripe. Prove it against the fact that U.S. citizens carry their national allegiance within them wherever they go in the world and pass it on to their offspring at birth under Congress' international jurisdiction of jus sanguinis.

 

[HenryBHough]

The case file for the existence of sock puppets is thickening!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes, the state department has a avenue for minors who want to renounce their citizenship. Stop obfucscating.

Renunciation of U.S. Nationality

Renunciation of U.S. Nationality

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.

We're still waiting for you to acknowledge the fact that Congress and the State Department have certified the natural-born status of three presidential candidates who were indisputably born.

Where is your proof that Congress and the State Department certified the NBC status of the other two candidates unlike McCain who was presumed a NBC by non-binding Senate Resolution 511 being born to two U.S. Citizen parents (plural) in U.S. jurisdiction?

As for why Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Obama are not eligible for Article 2 Section 1, Here is a respected Constitutional scholar/attorney with outstanding credentials that describes what a true natural born Citizen is that the founders had in mind to meet the requirements of Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause. He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Pay close attention and listen to both parts of what he has to say M.D. Rawlings. You might learn something. Both parts combined are just 6 minutes.

Wrong again.

The Panama Canal Zone by statute and case law was never within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States for constitutional purposes, and Congress asserted no such thing in its Resolution. The Zone was an unincorporated territory, strictly Panamanian soil under the United States administrative jurisdiction only via the terms of a lease. Persons born of U.S. citizens in the Zone had to be covered under the congressional prerogative of jus sanguinis, just like anyone else born abroad of U.S. citizens anywhere else in the world.

You don't know the difference between incorporated and unincorporated territories, do you?

Congress skirted the issue of constitutional jurisdiction in that Resolution because the fact of the matter is that McCain was not actually covered by any extant decree of jus sanguinis at the time of his birth. That Resolution was sheer political theater.

The State Department at the direction of Congress asserts citizenship at birth for those duly born abroad of U.S. citizens in its Foreign Affairs Manuel. Their certification is a standing order. They don't need a resolution, just like McCain wouldn't have needed a resolution had his eligibility not been challenged by academia and the press due to a certain glitch in the law at the time of his birth.

But you don't know what that glitch was, do you?

In any event, what Congress did do in that Resolution, even though it was non-binding, is assert it's constitutional prerogative to confer natural-born citizenship via jus sanguinis, just as the First Congress of the United States did so in 1790 when it established the precedent.

Now, also understand this, a later law retroactively conferred citizenship at birth on those, like McCain, who were born in the Zone of U.S. citizens during the years of the void.

But, technically, natural-born citizenship can only be conferred at the moment of birth, not retroactively, as any retroactive conferral had been historically regarded as an act of naturalization after the fact of birth. The fact of the matter is that McCain was not a citizen of the United States at birth, but was at best a Panamanian national and at worst a non-declared citizen of the world. The matter is complex and historically unique, but it all pivots on the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories and the absence of an extant decree of jus sanguinis covering the Zone at the time of his birth.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

You need to pay attention to what this man says. As for why Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Obama are not eligible for Article 2 Section 1, here is a respected Constitutional scholar/attorney with outstanding credentials that describes what a true natural born Citizen is that the founders had in mind to meet the requirements of Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause. He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Again, pay close attention and listen to both parts of what he has to say M.D. Rawlings. You might learn something. Both parts combined are just 6 minutes.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8]Natural Born Citizen? - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ]Natural Born Citizen? Part II - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Pete7469]

 

[Statistikhengst]

He's one of yours. Enjoy him.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Here's what I learned from, more at about, the Good Professor: the cheese has slid his cracker!

You need to pay attention to what this man says. As for why Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Obama are not eligible for Article 2 Section 1, here is a respected Constitutional scholar/attorney with outstanding credentials that describes what a true natural born Citizen is that the founders had in mind to meet the requirements of Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause. He taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

He holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

Again, pay close attention and listen to both parts of what he has to say M.D. Rawlings. You might learn something. Both parts combined are just 6 minutes.

First of all, what you need to do is stop listening to crackpots and listen to me. I take back what I said in the above. I assumed, given the Good Professor's credentials, that it had to be you who had misunderstood him, just as you misunderstood the author in the article that you cited in the above. Bad assumption.

Stop trying to impress me with his credentials. I refuted Professor of Law Gabriel J. Chin on the faculty of the James E. Roberts College of Law at the University of Arizona on a point of law concerning the original intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC) and the Court's treatment of it via the Fourteenth Amendment in Wong Kim Ark ("A Critique of the Chin Argument"). While Chin's central thesis regarding the actual status of McCain's nationality at birth is correct (Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship), his assumption regarding the veracity of the majority's historical narrative for its ratio decidendi in Wong Kim Ark is the sheer political naivete of a liberal civil rights attorney operating outside his immediate area of expertise.

On the other hand, what we have here with the Good Professor in your videos is a man who is operating outside his friggin' mind!

However, before you read my critique of Chin's paper, you should read my piece here first: "Was Senator John McCain a U.S. Citizen at Birth?". In this piece, I discuss the actualities of Resolution 511 ATS (110th Congress, 2nd Session; April 10, 2008) which declared McCain's eligibility. This piece will give you the background you need in order to follow my critique. Then read my critique, and after that read my piece here: "Wong Kim Ark Meet Rogers".

Should you still have any doubts about the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories after that, then read my piece here, which is pertinent to the issue that Chin and I discuss: "The Straight Dope on U.S. Territories".

By the way, that article will also teach you the difference between (1) national allegiance and (2) the allegiance of citizenry. The latter entails national allegiance and the full slate of the Constitution's political rights and protections, as they automatically obtain to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment and the construct of the NBCC. The former does not necessarily entail all of those privileges, unless specifically stipulated otherwise by Congress. There are distinct divisions of allegiance relative to constitutional, territorial and international law. If you do not understand the various applications of allegiance relative to their respective contexts, you might be reading things into articles, like the one you cited in the above, that aren't there.

As for the Good Professor's delusions, read my pieces here:
"Citizenship and Nationality: Historical Foundation and Framework"
"The Natural-Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution"
"A Compendium of the Statutory History of Jus Sanguinis"

Everything in the above is pertinent to debunking the Good Professor's bluster and disabusing you of his influence should you wish to be set free of it. Once you've read this material, the observations in my following three posts will be manifestly self-evident. If you don't wish to get into the McCain drama, just read the three significantly shorter pieces directly above and move on, though it's a good idea to know the difference between the varying kinds of territories held by the United States and the particulars of the citizenship/nationality in terms of allegiance thereof. That will help you understand how the Fourteenth Amendment and the NBCC obtain within the territorial/administrative jurisdictions of the United States and to its international jurisdiction via the congressional prerogative of jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline).
_____________________________

Main Link: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Let's review what the Good Professor gets right.

(1) The natural-born citizen is distinguished from the naturalized citizen by the fact of his natural geography and the fact of his natural descendancy. That is to say, a natural-born citizen is by definition a person who is born of both the soil and the blood of the nation.

(2) The Fourteenth Amendment did not change one damn thing about the understanding and the application of the Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC)!

If you would just be still for a moment, Steve, and give ear to this staunch defender of original intent, if you would stop calling this staunch defender with a solid, scholarly background in citizenship and nationality law who is talking to you in good faith a liar: you might come to understand why your thesis actually undermines the construct of natural born citizenship, aids and abets the machinations of leftist judges who would undermine Congressional authority over national sovereignty and allegiance as they would transfer that authority to the judiciary practically beyond the peoples' reach.

Let that sink in.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Let's review what the Good Professor gets right.

(1) The natural-born citizen is distinguished from the naturalized citizen by the fact of his natural geography and the fact of his natural descendancy. That is to say, a natural-born citizen is by definition a person who is born of both the soil and the blood of the nation.

(2) The Fourteenth Amendment did not change one damn thing about the understanding and the application of the Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC)!

If you would just be still for a moment, Steve, and give ear to this staunch defender of original intent, if you would stop calling this staunch defender with a solid, scholarly background in citizenship and nationality law who is talking to you in good faith a liar: you might come to understand why your thesis actually undermines the construct of natural born citizenship, aids and abets the machinations of leftist judges who would undermine Congressional authority over national sovereignty and allegiance as they would transfer that authority to the judiciary practically beyond the peoples' reach.

Let that sink in.

I just saw your two posts. Before I read them over tommorow and the weekend, I want to ask you one thing. For you to call the good Constitutional scholar and lawyer delusional and a crackpot, what are your credentials in the legal field when it comes constitutional law compared to his credentials?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Let's review what the Good Professor gets right.

(1) The natural-born citizen is distinguished from the naturalized citizen by the fact of his natural geography and the fact of his natural descendancy. That is to say, a natural-born citizen is by definition a person who is born of both the soil and the blood of the nation.

(2) The Fourteenth Amendment did not change one damn thing about the understanding and the application of the Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC)!

If you would just be still for a moment, Steve, and give ear to this staunch defender of original intent, if you would stop calling this staunch defender with a solid, scholarly background in citizenship and nationality law who is talking to you in good faith a liar: you might come to understand why your thesis actually undermines the construct of natural born citizenship, aids and abets the machinations of leftist judges who would undermine Congressional authority over national sovereignty and allegiance as they would transfer that authority to the judiciary practically beyond the peoples' reach.

Let that sink in.

I just saw your two posts. Before I read them over tommorow and the weekend, I want to ask you one thing. For you to call the good Constitutional scholar and lawyer delusional and a crackpot, what are your credentials in the legal field when it comes constitutional law compared to his credentials?

My credentials are right here: Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles. If you're looking for something else, you put stock in the wrong things.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Let's review what the Good Professor gets right.

(1) The natural-born citizen is distinguished from the naturalized citizen by the fact of his natural geography and the fact of his natural descendancy. That is to say, a natural-born citizen is by definition a person who is born of both the soil and the blood of the nation.

(2) The Fourteenth Amendment did not change one damn thing about the understanding and the application of the Natural Born Citizen Clause (NBCC)!

If you would just be still for a moment, Steve, and give ear to this staunch defender of original intent, if you would stop calling this staunch defender with a solid, scholarly background in citizenship and nationality law who is talking to you in good faith a liar: you might come to understand why your thesis actually undermines the construct of natural born citizenship, aids and abets the machinations of leftist judges who would undermine Congressional authority over national sovereignty and allegiance as they would transfer that authority to the judiciary practically beyond the peoples' reach.

Let that sink in.

I just saw your two posts. Before I read them over tommorow and the weekend, I want to ask you one thing. For you to call the good Constitutional scholar and lawyer delusional and a crackpot, what are your credentials in the legal field when it comes constitutional law compared to his credentials?

My credentials are right here: Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles. If you're looking for something else, you put stock in the wrong things.

No sir, those are not credentials. Please post your professional credentials in the legal field and Constitutional law.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I just saw your two posts. Before I read them over tommorow and the weekend, I want to ask you one thing. For you to call the good Constitutional scholar and lawyer delusional and a crackpot, what are your credentials in the legal field when it comes constitutional law compared to his credentials?

My credentials are right here: Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles. If you're looking for something else, you put stock in the wrong things.

No sir, those are not credentials. Please post your professional credentials in the legal field and Constitutional law.

And from whom did you the learn the truth about the jurisdictional status of the Panama Canal Zone? From the Good Professor or from me?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This just in:

Ted Cruz STILL a natural born citizen.

Thank you. We now return you to your normal USMB thread browsing activity.