Trump Campaign Manager: He Will Debate Cruz Once A Judge Rules He Is A Natural Born Citizen

[gtopa1]

This is a tad confusing. My own reading of the matter is that "statutory" relates to Laws; those NOT relating to Common Law etc etc etc. One may it seems become a Citizen due to the Statutes(Laws) relating to the acquiring of Citizenship as referenced by others here--quite usefully...they would then be "Naturalised" or even "recognised" but "Statutory"?? The other common occurrance of "Statutory" in the media of late is in reference to "Satutory rape"; I have however never heard of a Statutory rapist....the term relates to the Law; not the offender.

Greg

 

[Syriusly]

OKTexas is using Forums, a blog site, for his definition of statutory citizens. Good grief.

No one, far right or far left or in between, gets their own facts and definitions.

In law, there is no such thing as a "statutory citizen."

The Law Dictionary - Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

Black's law dictionary defines Natural born citizen- and naturalized citizen.

Doesn't mention 'statutory citizen'- just as- coincidentally- the Constitution never mentions 'statutory citizen'.

8 Code 1401 is a statute. People who acquire Federal citizenship under the code are known as statutory Citizens. Stop obfuscating.


U.S. Citizenship Laws & Policy

Just because Birthers call some citizens 'statutory citizens' doesn't magically create a new category.

 

[Syriusly]

OKTexas is using Forums, a blog site, for his definition of statutory citizens. Good grief.

No one, far right or far left or in between, gets their own facts and definitions.

In law, there is no such thing as a "statutory citizen."

Typical regressive there fakey, can't refute the information so you attack the source. Damn you're one pathetic individual.

What source?- you referenced someone opinion on a blog.

Hell you may have written that.

I referenced Black's Law Dictionary- you referenced someone's opinion on a blog.

That isn't attacking a source- it is attacking your lack of credibility when it comes to citations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas is using Forums, a blog site, for his definition of statutory citizens. Good grief.

No one, far right or far left or in between, gets their own facts and definitions.

In law, there is no such thing as a "statutory citizen."

Typical regressive there fakey, can't refute the information so you attack the source. Damn you're one pathetic individual.

There is no such thing as a "statutory citizen" in law. Yet you double down on being an asshat. Go for it. On this issue, you have absolutely no cred, bud.

 

[Syriusly]

OKTexas is using Forums, a blog site, for his definition of statutory citizens. Good grief.

No one, far right or far left or in between, gets their own facts and definitions.

In law, there is no such thing as a "statutory citizen."

Typical regressive there fakey, can't refute the information so you attack the source. Damn you're one pathetic individual.

There is no such thing as a "statutory citizen" in law. Yet you double down on being an asshat. Go for it. On this issue, you have absolutely no cred, bud.

I can find a website that proclaims that unicorns are real.

Maybe OK will reference that next time.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas is using Forums, a blog site, for his definition of statutory citizens. Good grief.

No one, far right or far left or in between, gets their own facts and definitions.

In law, there is no such thing as a "statutory citizen."

Typical regressive there fakey, can't refute the information so you attack the source. Damn you're one pathetic individual.

What source?- you referenced someone opinion on a blog.

Hell you may have written that.

I referenced Black's Law Dictionary- you referenced someone's opinion on a blog.

That isn't attacking a source- it is attacking your lack of credibility when it comes to citations.

Which if you noticed also referenced Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 1025.

 

[Syriusly]

OKTexas is using Forums, a blog site, for his definition of statutory citizens. Good grief.

No one, far right or far left or in between, gets their own facts and definitions.

In law, there is no such thing as a "statutory citizen."

Typical regressive there fakey, can't refute the information so you attack the source. Damn you're one pathetic individual.

What source?- you referenced someone opinion on a blog.

Hell you may have written that.

I referenced Black's Law Dictionary- you referenced someone's opinion on a blog.

That isn't attacking a source- it is attacking your lack of credibility when it comes to citations.

Which if you noticed also referenced Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 1025.

Oh I saw it- lets review shall we?

2.3. The differences between these two statuses are explained in the following definition: "Nationality. That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization. See also
Naturalization." [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1025]

So your blog cites the definition of "Nationality"- from Black's Law Dictionary- and that definition of course- as I have pointed out- does not mention 'statutory citizen'

Here is the quote from the online version


What is NATIONALITY?

That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person’s belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization. According to Savigny, “nationality” is also used as opposed to “territoriality,” for the purpose of distinguishing the case of a nation having no national territory; e. g., the Jews. 8 Sav. Syst.

Not one word about 'statutory citizen' or even citizen.

Again- you cited a blog with someone's opinion- for all we know- you may be citing yourself.

 

[Boss]

Someone needs to inform Donald Trump how the law works. You can't get a court or judge to make a ruling on a non-existing case against yourself. Trump could take Cruz to court challenging his natural born status, but until someone makes a case the court cannot rule.

Inevitably, some jerkwater WILL take this to court. This happens ALL the time... never fails. There has NEVER been a candidate removed from the presidential race on the basis of this and there probably never will be.

First of all, "natural born" is not defined by law anywhere by statute. It has been litigated numerous times and the court has set precedent on the matter. Second, it meets the Political Test Rule. This is where SCOTUS refuses to get involved in politically-charged issues of a partisan political nature. So whenever some yahoo makes the charge on Cruz, this is what will happen and that will be the end of it.

 

[Syriusly]

Someone needs to inform Donald Trump how the law works. You can't get a court or judge to make a ruling on a non-existing case against yourself. Trump could take Cruz to court challenging his natural born status, but until someone makes a case the court cannot rule.

Inevitably, some jerkwater WILL take this to court. This happens ALL the time... never fails. There has NEVER been a candidate removed from the presidential race on the basis of this and there probably never will be.

First of all, "natural born" is not defined by law anywhere by statute. It has been litigated numerous times and the court has set precedent on the matter. Second, it meets the Political Test Rule. This is where SCOTUS refuses to get involved in politically-charged issues of a partisan political nature. So whenever some yahoo makes the charge on Cruz, this is what will happen and that will be the end of it.

Well I agree with what you say, generally, but Trump doesn't care about any of that- this is just part of his campaign to convince GOP voters that Cruz is not really American- and remind them over and over that he was born in Canada and his father was Cuban.

Trump doesn't really care whether Cruz is eligible or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump cares about winning.

Use that factor when evaluating anything he says.

 

[S.J.]

Someone needs to inform Donald Trump how the law works. You can't get a court or judge to make a ruling on a non-existing case against yourself. Trump could take Cruz to court challenging his natural born status, but until someone makes a case the court cannot rule.

Inevitably, some jerkwater WILL take this to court. This happens ALL the time... never fails. There has NEVER been a candidate removed from the presidential race on the basis of this and there probably never will be.

First of all, "natural born" is not defined by law anywhere by statute. It has been litigated numerous times and the court has set precedent on the matter. Second, it meets the Political Test Rule. This is where SCOTUS refuses to get involved in politically-charged issues of a partisan political nature. So whenever some yahoo makes the charge on Cruz, this is what will happen and that will be the end of it.

Why is it that the Fla. SC was permitted to make a judgment on the recount in the 2,000 election without a case being brought? No one filed a motion, they just made a ruling (in Gore's favor, of course).

 

[SwimExpert]

Only good stock of white European heritage should be accepted.

Like this one...

 

[paulitician]

Trump don't play. I'm guessing that's what people like most about him. He's straight-up in your face. However, that's also what people hate most about him.

Personally, i think it's refreshing. I'm completely sick of the same ole same ole PC shite. Most of the Candidates running, aren't saying anything. So afraid to be honest. So afraid they might offend someone. They're cowards.

 

[Syriusly]

Someone needs to inform Donald Trump how the law works. You can't get a court or judge to make a ruling on a non-existing case against yourself. Trump could take Cruz to court challenging his natural born status, but until someone makes a case the court cannot rule.

Inevitably, some jerkwater WILL take this to court. This happens ALL the time... never fails. There has NEVER been a candidate removed from the presidential race on the basis of this and there probably never will be.

First of all, "natural born" is not defined by law anywhere by statute. It has been litigated numerous times and the court has set precedent on the matter. Second, it meets the Political Test Rule. This is where SCOTUS refuses to get involved in politically-charged issues of a partisan political nature. So whenever some yahoo makes the charge on Cruz, this is what will happen and that will be the end of it.

Why is it that the Fla. SC was permitted to make a judgment on the recount in the 2,000 election without a case being brought? No one filed a motion, they just made a ruling (in Gore's favor, of course).

Florida election recount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bush campaign sued to prevent additional recounts on the basis that no errors were found in the tabulation method until subjective measures were applied in manual recounts.


The trial of Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Katherine Harris was a response from the Bush campaign to state litigation against extending the statutory deadlines for the manual recounts. Besides deadlines, also in dispute were the criteria that each county's canvassing board would use in examining the overvotes and/or undervotes. Numerous local court rulings went both ways, some ordering recounts because the vote was so close and others declaring that a selective manual recount in a few heavily Democratic counties would be unfair.
Eventually, the Gore campaign appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which ordered the recount to proceed. The Bush campaign subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States,

 

[Boss]

Someone needs to inform Donald Trump how the law works. You can't get a court or judge to make a ruling on a non-existing case against yourself. Trump could take Cruz to court challenging his natural born status, but until someone makes a case the court cannot rule.

Inevitably, some jerkwater WILL take this to court. This happens ALL the time... never fails. There has NEVER been a candidate removed from the presidential race on the basis of this and there probably never will be.

First of all, "natural born" is not defined by law anywhere by statute. It has been litigated numerous times and the court has set precedent on the matter. Second, it meets the Political Test Rule. This is where SCOTUS refuses to get involved in politically-charged issues of a partisan political nature. So whenever some yahoo makes the charge on Cruz, this is what will happen and that will be the end of it.

Why is it that the Fla. SC was permitted to make a judgment on the recount in the 2,000 election without a case being brought? No one filed a motion, they just made a ruling (in Gore's favor, of course).

Because that is the STATE Supreme Court. They don't have the same rules as the US Supreme Court. And yes, Gore filed the motion and the ruling was in his favor. It went before SCOTUS and the Political Question Doctrine came into play.

 

[S.J.]

And there you have it.

Trump Camp: He Will Debate Cruz Once A Judge Rules He Can Actually Be President [AUDIO]

Trump to debate Cruz — when he proves presidential eligibility

This just in: Cruz will debate Rump when Rump proves he's not an orangutan.

And once again you prove liberals are not funny.

You had your funny bone removed, I see. I can understand why considering.

You think that's funny? I'm not surprised, morons are easily amused.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas is using Forums, a blog site, for his definition of statutory citizens. Good grief.

No one, far right or far left or in between, gets their own facts and definitions.

In law, there is no such thing as a "statutory citizen."

Typical regressive there fakey, can't refute the information so you attack the source. Damn you're one pathetic individual.

There is no such thing as a "statutory citizen" in law. Yet you double down on being an asshat. Go for it. On this issue, you have absolutely no cred, bud.

As opposed to you not having cred an ANY issue. LMAO

 

[S.J.]

Someone needs to inform Donald Trump how the law works. You can't get a court or judge to make a ruling on a non-existing case against yourself. Trump could take Cruz to court challenging his natural born status, but until someone makes a case the court cannot rule.

Inevitably, some jerkwater WILL take this to court. This happens ALL the time... never fails. There has NEVER been a candidate removed from the presidential race on the basis of this and there probably never will be.

First of all, "natural born" is not defined by law anywhere by statute. It has been litigated numerous times and the court has set precedent on the matter. Second, it meets the Political Test Rule. This is where SCOTUS refuses to get involved in politically-charged issues of a partisan political nature. So whenever some yahoo makes the charge on Cruz, this is what will happen and that will be the end of it.

Why is it that the Fla. SC was permitted to make a judgment on the recount in the 2,000 election without a case being brought? No one filed a motion, they just made a ruling (in Gore's favor, of course).

Florida election recount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bush campaign sued to prevent additional recounts on the basis that no errors were found in the tabulation method until subjective measures were applied in manual recounts.


The trial of Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Katherine Harris was a response from the Bush campaign to state litigation against extending the statutory deadlines for the manual recounts. Besides deadlines, also in dispute were the criteria that each county's canvassing board would use in examining the overvotes and/or undervotes. Numerous local court rulings went both ways, some ordering recounts because the vote was so close and others declaring that a selective manual recount in a few heavily Democratic counties would be unfair.
Eventually, the Gore campaign appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which ordered the recount to proceed. The Bush campaign subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States,

I'm talking about the Fla. SC ruling that they could disregard the deadline for certification and continue to do a second recount.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas is using Forums, a blog site, for his definition of statutory citizens. Good grief.

No one, far right or far left or in between, gets their own facts and definitions.

In law, there is no such thing as a "statutory citizen."

Typical regressive there fakey, can't refute the information so you attack the source. Damn you're one pathetic individual.

There is no such thing as a "statutory citizen" in law. Yet you double down on being an asshat. Go for it. On this issue, you have absolutely no cred, bud.

As opposed to you not having cred an ANY issue. LMAO

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas is using Forums, a blog site, for his definition of statutory citizens. Good grief.

No one, far right or far left or in between, gets their own facts and definitions.

In law, there is no such thing as a "statutory citizen."

Typical regressive there fakey, can't refute the information so you attack the source. Damn you're one pathetic individual.

What source?- you referenced someone opinion on a blog.

Hell you may have written that.

I referenced Black's Law Dictionary- you referenced someone's opinion on a blog.

That isn't attacking a source- it is attacking your lack of credibility when it comes to citations.

Really, I provided a link to the site where I found it. I only posted a small portion of the post, did you bother to actually read it?