[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone Status: Not Logged In; Sign In -- See other -- Articles Title: we are waiting for the NJ results. Source: MaineTV.net URL Source: http://www.mainetv.net/ Published: Apr 11, 2016 Author: staff with help Post Date: 2016-04-11 15:25:23 by BobCeleste Keywords: None Views: 8001 Comments: 27 We should have had the official results of the New Jersey Secretary Of State hearing on the Cruz eligibility case at 3:PM today but,nothing at 3, she said, maybe by 4. Evidently they case is getting hot and heave, a lot at stake and NJ seems to be taking their responsibility seriously. If we have nothing by five, maybe Drudge will, but the office I have for the New Jersey Secretary of State closes at 5PM. As I understand it the Judge has to rule by Wednesday. beginning or end of day I don't know. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: BobCeleste (#0) We should have had the official results of the New Jersey Secretary Of State hearing on the Cruz eligibility case..... Hmmmmmm........it may hit the fan today. One thing for sure, it certainly will not be a settled issue. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-11   15:27:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: BobCeleste (#0) (Edited) Uhhhhh,let's see,here. We have a NJ Sec of State,put in office by Fat Boy Christie,who is butt-buddies with Trump,investigating Trump's biggest rival? Nope,no bias there,is there? You Trumpette's really are pathetic. You KNOW your boy is so freaking lame he can't win it on his own,so you want his competition disqualified by a tame NJ politician because you know that even though it won't mean squat in the legal sense,it might scare a few Cruz voters away so your Lust Bunny can have the chance to step down without being defeated. Bob,you proclaim yourself to be a Christian,yet you stoop to this nonsense because you support a serial liar,thief,and adulterer who only worships himself? I have lost all respect for you. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them. sneakypete  posted on  2016-04-11   15:33:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: SOSO, sneakypete (#1) Hmmmmmm........it may hit the fan today. One thing for sure, it certainly will not be a settled issue. Well, if it works its way up through the NJ courts, Cruz could appeal. And Trump's sister Maryanne "Partial-Birth" (Trump) Barry just happens to be a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. So she could rule on Cruz's eligibility in much the same way as she ruled to protect the right of women to have their abortionist deliver a late-term baby just enough for the abortionist to stab the baby in the back of the skull with surgical scissors before delivering the dead baby whole. It's not impossible. Any ruling by NJ courts would quickly get appealed to federal courts. And her court would be along the way to the Supreme Court. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-11   16:28:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: TooConservative (#3) I certainly hope we get this birther business into the Federal courts on the merits, so that the issue itself can be clearly resolved for good. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-11   17:24:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Vicomte13 (#4) (Edited) The courts (and the Court) have always refused to take these cases or, if they do, they issue the narrowest possible ruling under the current statutes enacted by Congress. You have to consider the consequences in future elections (as the Court would). Ruling against Cruz would have consequences on the status of future possible nominees in both parties. The path of least resistance and greatest liberality in interpreting the current law by the Court would be to affirm Cruz narrowly as natural-born. Probably in a 10-word sentence in a unanimous opinion. Some things, the Court works hard to stay out of. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-11   17:30:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: TooConservative (#5) They refused to hear cases about OBAMA. Cruz ain't Obama. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-11   19:02:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: Vicomte13 (#6) They have a long history of avoiding hearing cases on this topic. Not just 0bama. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-11   19:11:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: TooConservative, sneakypete (#3) Any ruling by NJ courts would quickly get appealed to federal courts. And her court would be along the way to the Supreme Court. Do you think she would recuse herself? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-11   19:36:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: SOSO (#8) Yes. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-11   19:54:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: BobCeleste (#0) somebody said vote for scruffy not a bad idea love boris If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys ! BorisY  posted on  2016-04-12   1:26:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#4) I certainly hope we get this birther business into the Federal courts on the merits, so that the issue itself can be clearly resolved for good. There are no merits. It will be dismissed before any trial like the hundreds of frivolous cases before it. http://www.northjersey.com/news/ted-cruz-s-nationality-at-center-of-n-j-ballot-hearing-1.1542495 Ted Cruz's nationality at center of N.J. ballot hearing April 11, 2016, 12:42 PM Last updated: Monday, April 11, 2016, 7:58 PM By KIM LUEDDEKE staff writer | The Record HAMILTON TOWNSHIP – An administrative law judge is expected to rule today on arguments made Monday by a presidential write-in candidate who claims Sen. Ted Cruz is ineligible to run in New Jersey’s presidential primary because he was born in Canada. Judge Jeff Masin heard arguments by the write-in candidate, Victor Williams, an assistant law professor at the Catholic University of America, and members of a citizens’ group from South Jersey. They contend that Cruz’s birth in Canada means he cannot be a “natural born citizen,” one of three constitutional requirements for the presidency. Cruz, 45, was born in Calgary, Alberta. His mother was born in Delaware. His father was born in Cuba. The GOP primary candidate has said that a child of a U.S. citizen is automatically granted citizenship at birth and is therefore “natural born.” On Monday, Victor Williams, the law professor, argued that the framers of the Constitution were deliberate in their wording, including on the issue of eligibility for the presidency. “They made a decision in Philadelphia that summer to require a couple different soil tests,” Williams said in court. “You’ve got to be a resident on this soil for 14 years. You’ve got to be born on this soil.” But Masin interjected, arguing that Williams was applying his own interpretation of the phrase “natural born.” “It doesn’t say, you must be born in the United States,” Masin said about the Constitution. “It would be nice if they did, because then we wouldn’t be here.” The judge suggested that Williams and the members of the Concerned Citizens of South Jersey, who were represented by attorney Mario Apuzzo, consolidate their cases into one because they each involve the same factual issues. Shalom D. Stone, a lawyer who represented Cruz, referred the judge to his brief for his arguments in opposition to the challengers. Masin also heard arguments Monday about their standing to challenge Cruz’s eligibility. Williams, a declared candidate in several states, argues that he should have standing because he is an competitor to Cruz. Judges have rejected several challenges to Cruz’s eligibility to be president because the challengers lack standing. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month upheld a trial court decision that ruled Cruz meets the requirement for a natural born citizen. Masin’s opinion would go to Lieutenant Gov. Kim Guadagno for review in her role as secretary of the state. She has the option to accept the opinion in full or in part, or reject it, according to Apuzzo. Guadagno was Gov. Chris Christie’s running mate in the 2009 and 2013 elections. Following his failed presidential bid, Christie has come out in support of Cruz’s main challenger, Donald Trump. Williams said Monday that he supports Trump. At least one of the three South Jersey challengers, Fernando Powers, also said he is a Trump supporter. Neither Cruz nor Trump has racked up enough delegates to ensure their nomination at the GOP’s convention in July, which could mean that New Jersey’s June 7 primary would be more significant in the outcome than it has in decades. The Republican primary is winner-take-all in New Jersey. The candidate who wins the most votes wins 51 state delegates pledged to vote for him on the convention’s first ballot. Staff writer Herb Jackson contributed to this report. https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/39/0.pdf?ts=1221601194 Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen et al, CAND C 08-03836 WHA (2008), Doc 39, at 4: It is clear that mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and that the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review - if any - should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300-02 (1998). This circumstance also obviates any occasion to consider plaintiff’s standing-cure suggestion that the American Independent Party (affiliated with Alan Keyes) be allowed to intervene. ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Alsup denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 27 Motion to Dismiss (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2008) - - - - - - - - - - https://www.scribd.com/doc/40107522/KEYES-et-al-v-BOWEN-et-al-3rd-Appellate-District-Court-of-Appeals-Sacramento-Opinion-Affirming-Lower-Court-Decision-in-Full-C062321 KEYES, et al. v BOWEN, et al. (3rd Appellate District Court of Appeals - Sacramento) - Opinion Affirming Lower Court Decision At 1-2: Plaintiffs’ contentions lack merit. Among other things, we conclude that the Secretary of State does not have a duty to investigate and determine whether a presidential candidate meets eligibility requirements of the United State Constitution. As we will explain, the presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly-elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes. At 6: The trial court sustained both demurrers, ruling the Secretary of State was required to see that state election laws are enforced, but plaintiffs had not identified a state election law imposing a ministerial duty to demand documentary proof of birthplace from presidential candidates. At 7: The court also found the petition was moot as to all parties with respect to the 2008 General Election because the Electoral College had voted and Mr. Obama had been inaugurated as President of the United States. It was not ripe as to future elections because the issues were not framed with sufficient concreteness and immediacy to allow the court to render a conclusive and definitive judgment rather than an advisory opinion based on hypothetical facts or speculative future events. And the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the subject of the action in that federal law establishes election procedures and the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. The appropriate procedure was an action before the United States Congress pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Congress and 3 U.S.C. section 15. In the trial court’s words, plaintiffs’ “belief in the importance of their arguments is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.” - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2016-04-12   2:17:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: nolu chan (#11) There are no merits. It will be dismissed before any trial like the hundreds of frivolous cases before it. These cases nearly always fail due to lack of standing, something we should all know after the frivolous Oily Taitz cases. But someone is always willing to attentionwhore for 15 minutes of fame in some courtroom, just to get slapped down again. The courts are, as always, quite loathe to intervene in the activities of the parties. If people want laws on the books that, for instance, only persons born on American soil can be listed on their ballot, they should change the laws of their state. Of course, that would have excluded McStain in 2008. In the future, it might also exclude some favorite son of NJ who happened to be born overseas, perhaps to parent(s) on active duty military service. The courts and legislatures don't want to keep rewriting the laws constantly, particularly not in the middle of an election season where their actions are likely to disenfranchise so many voters. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-12   5:43:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: nolu chan (#11) Oh, there is PLENTY of merit to these cases. Truth is, there is a constitutional provision about which these cases turn. Truth is, that constitutional provision isn't clear. Truth is, the meaning of that provision has been eviscerated, because the courts refuse to face the issue. Is somebody born outside of the USA of an American parent a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency, yes or no? The Courts won't rule on it. Winston Churchill could have been President of the United States under the current non-standard. Born in Britain of a posh family, his mother was born American, and that would be enough under the current "standard"...except that maybe the law of the time said "no", but that would then mean that the definition of who was and who wasn't eligible to be President would be completely under the control of Congress, who could change that at a whim, as opposed to being a fixed and predictable constitutional rule (as it was intended to be). The stark refusal to face the ambiguity is going to continue to bedevil this country going forward in an international world. It does not serve us well to leave such an important question unanswered. And it's a lie to say that it has been clearly answered. It has not been. It should be. The court should take the case, look at the law, and rule one way or the other. Set the standard and clear the decks. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-12   7:03:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: TooConservative (#12) These cases nearly always fail due to lack of standing, something we should all know after the frivolous Oily Taitz cases. They SHOULD not have. They did only because of the enormous popularity of, and race of, Barack Obama. The courts shied away from doing their duty in order to not become involved in a test of power. That set a precedent, of sorts. The precedent is that the "natural born" clause of the Constitution means nothing if you're a popular candidate. This is going to keep biting us in the ass. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-12   7:05:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: Vicomte13 (#13) The court should take the case, look at the law, and rule one way or the other. Set the standard and clear the decks. I appoint you the task of forcing the courts to address this finally. Okay? Get in there with your own lawsuit and just make them do it. Good luck. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-12   7:25:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: TooConservative (#15) I appoint you the task of forcing the courts to address this finally. Okay? Get in there with your own lawsuit and just make them do it. Good luck. Nah. I'll ally with the strongest horse every time rather than go down with a sinking ship. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-12   10:01:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: Vicomte13 (#16) Yeah, right. You know it's hopeless. The courts will slam the door in your face, sneering "Standing!". And you know it. That's what will happen in NJ this time too. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-12   10:57:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: SOSO (#1) Hmmmmmm........it may hit the fan today. One thing for sure, it certainly will not be a settled issue. Yup. Still waiting. `eth yalad `eth muwth. BobCeleste  posted on  2016-04-12   10:59:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: sneakypete (#2) Uhhhhh,let's see,here. We have a NJ Sec of State,put in office by Fat Boy Christie,who is butt-buddies with Trump,investigating Trump's biggest rival? pete, where did you find that judge Masin is a Christie appointee? `eth yalad `eth muwth. BobCeleste  posted on  2016-04-12   11:01:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Vicomte13 (#4) I certainly hope we get this birther business into the Federal courts on the merits, so that the issue itself can be clearly resolved for good. me too. `eth yalad `eth muwth. BobCeleste  posted on  2016-04-12   11:02:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: BobCeleste (#19) pete, where did you find that judge Masin is a Christie appointee? I didn't,but the fact remains he is a NJ judge,and thus a corrupt part of a corrupt political machine. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them. sneakypete  posted on  2016-04-12   12:00:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: TooConservative (#17) Yeah, right. You know it's hopeless. The courts will slam the door in your face, sneering "Standing!". And you know it. In New Jersey, with a court that is something like 7-2 Republican, I have no doubt that Cruz will be found eligible. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-12   14:22:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: Vicomte13, TooConservativ e (#13) Oh, there is PLENTY of merit to these cases. Truth is, there is a constitutional provision about which these cases turn. Truth is, that constitutional provision isn't clear. Truth is, the meaning of that provision has been eviscerated, because the courts refuse to face the issue. Is somebody born outside of the USA of an American parent a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency, yes or no? The Courts won't rule on it. The courts have a self-stated lack of jurisdiction in matters assigned by the Constitution to the Legislative branch. And the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the subject of the action in that federal law establishes election procedures and the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. The appropriate procedure was an action before the United States Congress pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Congress and 3 U.S.C. section 15. In the trial court’s words, plaintiffs’ “belief in the importance of their arguments is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.” Keyes v. Bowen, as quoted supra. Somebody born outside of the USA of an American parent is born a natural born citizen, yes. Nobody has ever challenged the natural born citizenship of any candidate in the only lawful method provided by the Constitution. Challenges in the courts of the 50 states run afoul of: As we will explain, the presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. A lawsuit submitted to a court or administrative body with no jurisdiction has no merit. Keyes v. Bowen, as quoted supra. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review - if any - should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300-02 (1998). This circumstance also obviates any occasion to consider plaintiff’s standing-cure suggestion that the American Independent Party (affiliated with Alan Keyes) be allowed to intervene. Robinson v. Bowen, quoted supra. The matter has been addressed by SCOTUS in dicta. Of course, the Court has not, and could not, issue a holding directly addressing the issue as you desire, as it has never had such a case to rule upon, and never will as long as it is considered as committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch. In 1971, in Rogers the court set current precedent. http://supreme.justia.com/us/401/815/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) At 828: The reach of congressional power in this area is readily apparent: 1. Over 70 years ago the Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, reviewed and discussed early English statutes relating to rights of inheritance and of citizenship of persons born abroad of parents who were British subjects. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 668 -671 (1898). The Court concluded that "naturalization by descent" was not a common-law concept but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment. The statutes examined were 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 29 Car. 2, c. 6 (1677); 7 Anne, c. 5, 3 (1708); 4 Geo. 2, c. 21 (1731); and 13 Geo. 3, c. 21 (1773). Later Mr. Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, referred to this "very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray" and observed "that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute...." Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S., at 660 . He referred to the cited English statutes and stated, "These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence." We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute. At 829-30: Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing [401 U.S. 815, 830] rights, and affirmative of existing law," so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence: "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." UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf 7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY 7 FAM 1111.2 Citizenship (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95) a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization. b. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles: (1) Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes. (2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed. c. Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (Section 101(a)(23) INA) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (Sections 310 and 311 INA). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. Under U.S. law, foreign naturalization acquired automatically is not an expatriating act [see chapter 7 FAM 1200 ]. d. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens or for automatic collective naturalization of persons residing in territories over which the United States has gained sovereignty. [...] When all else fails, read the modifying statute. For any individual, the applicable statute is the one that applied at the moment of birth. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property; (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person; (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions 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 prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; (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; (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003449)) The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] 3 Farrand's Records 617 at 629-630 Article IX § 1 in Appendix F of the Hamilton Plan of June 18, 1787 read: No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States. Opinion of Laurence H. Tribe and Theodore B. Olson of March 19, 2008 Those [British] statutes provided, for example, that children born abroad to parents who were "natural-born Subjects" were also "natural-born Subjects ... to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever." British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. The Framers substituted the word "citizen" for "subject" to reflect the shift from monarchy to democracy, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the two terms are otherwise identical:. See, e.g., Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34-35 (1903). Thus, the First Congress's statutory recognition that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens were "natural born" citizens fully conformed to British tradition, whereby citizenship conferred by statute based on the circumstances of one's birth made one natural born. A natural born citizen was one who is born a citizen of the United States. It is just not that complicated. The citizenship status of those born abroad is determined by Federal statute in force at the time of birth. nolu chan  posted on  2016-04-12   14:57:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: nolu chan (#23) A natural born citizen was one who is born a citizen of the United States. It is just not that complicated. The citizenship status of those born abroad is determined by Federal statute in force at the time of birth. Apparently not. Obama was born in Kenya, and at the time of his birth there, to an American, she was not old enough to convey US citizenship to her child. Therefore, Obama was not natural born, but there he sits, President of the United States, because the courts lack jurisdiction to touch the matter. Which is to say, the Constitutional provision is rendered null and void, when the man involved is powerful enough and popular enough. The rule of man, not law, is the law of the land. So be it. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-12   16:13:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Vicomte13 (#24) " Obama was born in Kenya, and at the time of his birth there, to an American, she was not old enough to convey US citizenship to her child. Therefore, Obama was not natural born " I agree. It is interesting Vic that that is your opinion. You may have stated it before, and I just missed it. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur Stoner  posted on  2016-04-12   16:23:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: Stoner (#25) I agree. It is interesting Vic that that is your opinion. You may have stated it before, and I just missed it. It isn't my opinion, it's the natural and inevitable conclusion of the law as nolu would have it applied. My opinion is that the law is unsettled and vague. The law at the time he was born was such that he would not be a natural born citizen, but it was changed later. So, which law applies NOW? I don't know. Nobody knows. Lots of people emote (and bleed out the eyes) and assert they DO know, but they're all of full of shit. It's never been adjudicated, so there is no real answer. The only answer we have is the de facto status quo, which is that one Kenyan could be President, if he's black and popular and nobody dares challenge him, but another couldn't be if he were not those things. That's unacceptable to me, but so many assholes took ridiculous stances regarding the matter during Obama's run-up to power that now they are trapped by their bad logic. Truth is, it needs to be clearly adjudicated. THEN there will BE an answer. Right now, the real law is that whether or not somebody is natural born depends on his political popularity. Obama is, because nobody who has the power will rule otherwise. There has been no principled position taken by the court, and there's no legal answer. Nolu chan is fine with that. I think it's a crock. MY ruling would be that later law changes can't retroactively make you a natural born citizen. Only a Constitutional change can do that. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-12   18:08:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: Vicomte13 (#26) " It isn't my opinion, it's the natural and inevitable conclusion of the law as nolu would have it applied. My opinion is that the law is unsettled and vague. " LOL OK, thanks for the clarification. I understand your position now ! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur Stoner  posted on  2016-04-12   18:19:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com