It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ted Cruz, Longtime Foe Of NASA And Science, Will Oversee NASA And Science In New Congress

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
According to the Supreme court, if your parents are citizens, you are a citizen, regardless of where you are born. It is the status of your parents, not the geographical location that is the deciding issue.


I'm not arguing that.

You will notice that nowhere in the decision did the term, Natural Born Citizen, appear. The Courts have never ruled on what that phrase means, so it is still untested, which means no precedent.
edit on 14-1-2015 by TheArrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




He said that Christ rode a dinosaur our are you being disingenuous again? Let's have a citation please.


That's just silly! Everybody knows the dinosaurs died out in Noah's Flood!






posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

No!

That has to be a parody, right? The second one, I mean. That's not real, is it?



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: TheArrow




Ted Cruz, Longtime Foe Of NASA And Science, Will Oversee NASA And Science In New Congress


I see this as a Conservative trend back to Fundamentalist Christian doctrine in government in general.

Look at Teds background....especially his dad.


time.com...


Wouldn't that be great??! Getting back to the principals that made this country the shining beacon on the hill.

Restoring our former glory should come before exporting our culture off planet.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: jrod






Somewhere there has to be someone taking bets on the 2016 POTUS candidates.


It's illegal to bet on election results in Vegas but there are plenty of bookies out there that will take your action!

Of course you can bet on anything in Britain. odds makers there have ....

Hillary at 6/5
Bush at 9/2
www.oddschecker.com...

As it gets closer to the election, the odds on bush will get close to even....so you can bet $111.11 and not even make enough to buy a cup of coffee.

As Amirillo Slim says...."if you can't spot the chump at the table....it's you"


Where do you get your coffee that it is 111 dollars?



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: TheArrow




Ted Cruz, Longtime Foe Of NASA And Science, Will Oversee NASA And Science In New Congress


I see this as a Conservative trend back to Fundamentalist Christian doctrine in government in general.

Look at Teds background....especially his dad.


time.com...


Wouldn't that be great??! Getting back to the principals that made this country the shining beacon on the hill.


Like slavery.....???



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: jrod






Somewhere there has to be someone taking bets on the 2016 POTUS candidates.


It's illegal to bet on election results in Vegas but there are plenty of bookies out there that will take your action!

Of course you can bet on anything in Britain. odds makers there have ....

Hillary at 6/5
Bush at 9/2
www.oddschecker.com...

As it gets closer to the election, the odds on bush will get close to even....so you can bet $111.11 and not even make enough to buy a cup of coffee.

As Amirillo Slim says...."if you can't spot the chump at the table....it's you"


Where do you get your coffee that it is 111 dollars?


Not from around here are ya? Your reading comprehension has something to be desired....

The $111 referred to the bet not the coffee! Enough of this prattle....lets get back on topic of that dumbass Cruz.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheArrow

Yeah. It's a parody. But some Christians do believe that some dinosaurs survived the flood, because of the mention of giants in the Bible. When Moses' scouts went out looking for valleys flowing with milk and honey, they stayed away from the areas where the giants were so big, the men were like grass hoppers to them!

Dinosaurs!


edit on 14-1-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc
According to the Supreme court, if your parents are citizens, you are a citizen, regardless of where you are born. It is the status of your parents, not the geographical location that is the deciding issue.


I'm not arguing that.

You will notice that nowhere in the decision did the term, Natural Born Citizen, appear. The Courts have never ruled on what that phrase means, so it is still untested, which means no precedent.


But the Supreme court has:
Minor v. Happersett Minor V. Happersett
From the majority opinion:



The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.


Lynch V. Clarke



“The provisions of the Constitution of the United States demonstrate that the right of citizenship, as distinguished from alienage, is a natural right or condition, and does not pertain to the individual states” (p. 641





“It is indispensable that there should be some fixed, certain and intelligible rules for determining the question of alienage or citizenship. The place of nativity furnishes one as plain and certain, and as readily to be proved, as any circumstance which can be mentioned


Perkins V. Elg


And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law….

The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,

Caselaw

United States v. Wong Kim Ark




[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’



…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

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


Open Jurist

Kwock Jan Fat v. White



It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen…


Justia US supreme Court

Elk V. Wilkins



The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.


Minor V. Happersett



Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.


Not only has the Supreme Court ruled on what a Natural Born Citizen is defined as multiple times, they have used that exact same phrase multiple times, so I don't know where you have arrived at this erroneous bit of information.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




He said that Christ rode a dinosaur our are you being disingenuous again? Let's have a citation please.


That's just silly! Everybody knows the dinosaurs died out in Noah's Flood!





I don't deny that there are some very foolish who believe that, however, I was asking for specific evidence that Ted Cruz did.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: TheArrow



NASA should refocus their efforts to find intelligent life in congress.

The best comment so far..nice one

This kind of thing is to be expected and was laid out previously..putting extremley unqualified(being nice about it) people to oversee, science, poverty, womens issues..etc.
edit on 14-1-2015 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Good, you read the wikipedia article, but I see you neglected to post the parts about how none of the rulings have any bearing on the Natural Born Citizen clause.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Read through your links, in a couple of them the court declares a person natural born but never defines it, in the last one where they get closest to a definition they state that a definition isn't something they're prepared to do at the time and it's not all that important. None of those links disprove the assertion that natural born citizen is still a legally undefined term.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow
a reply to: NavyDoc

Good, you read the wikipedia article, but I see you neglected to post the parts about how none of the rulings have any bearing on the Natural Born Citizen clause.



Didn't use wiki. Didn't have to. Google "supreme court defines natural citizen" and you get thousands of hits.

Sorry, but they did define it repeatedly and even Cornell Law laughs at your assertion.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Didn't use wiki. Didn't have to. Google "supreme court defines natural citizen" and you get thousands of hits.

Sorry, but they did define it repeatedly and even Cornell Law laughs at your assertion.


Cornell Law agrees with me that it is a debatable concept, considering it has never been settled.


Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen." One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.


www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Didn't use wiki. Didn't have to. Google "supreme court defines natural citizen" and you get thousands of hits.

Sorry, but they did define it repeatedly and even Cornell Law laughs at your assertion.


Cornell Law agrees with me that it is a debatable concept, considering it has never been settled.


Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen." One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.


www.law.cornell.edu...


That's not what they said nor that is not what your link says. They say some still debate it, not that it has never been ruled on by SCOTUS--it has, multiple times, as I have pointed out. Believe it or not, some scholars still debate things even after SCOTUS rules on it. A SCOTUS ruling does not end debate, in fact, they often make even more debate.

You said this:



The Courts have never ruled on what that phrase means, so it is still untested, which means no precedent.


I demonstrated that this statement was wrong, quite clearly, above. If you want to change the goalposts now to "there still is debate" or "there still is not complete consensus" be my guest, but your original statement was incorrect.
edit on 14-1-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That's not what they said nor that is not what your link says.


I quoted the page. It is exactly what it says.

The Natural Born Citizen Clause has never been interpreted by the SCOTUS, and seeing as that is the only place "natural born citizen" appears within the law, it's legal definition has NEVER BEEN SET.

Keep trying though, it's funny.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That's not what they said nor that is not what your link says.


I quoted the page. It is exactly what it says.

The Natural Born Citizen Clause has never been interpreted by the SCOTUS, and seeing as that is the only place "natural born citizen" appears within the law, it's legal definition has NEVER BEEN SET.

Keep trying though, it's funny.


Yes. They have made individual rulings.

But, by intent (apparently) left the door open for interpretation.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That's not what they said nor that is not what your link says.


I quoted the page. It is exactly what it says.

The Natural Born Citizen Clause has never been interpreted by the SCOTUS, and seeing as that is the only place "natural born citizen" appears within the law, it's legal definition has NEVER BEEN SET.

Keep trying though, it's funny.


Yes. They have made individual rulings.

But, by intent (apparently) left the door open for interpretation.


They have ruled on individuals, not the term. That is correct, and the crux of my point.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That's not what they said nor that is not what your link says.


I quoted the page. It is exactly what it says.

The Natural Born Citizen Clause has never been interpreted by the SCOTUS, and seeing as that is the only place "natural born citizen" appears within the law, it's legal definition has NEVER BEEN SET.

Keep trying though, it's funny.


Yes. They have made individual rulings.

But, by intent (apparently) left the door open for interpretation.


They have ruled on individuals, not the term. That is correct, and the crux of my point.


If there was a "hard and fast" rule, John McCain would not have been eligible. He was born prior to the ruling of children born out of country to military parents. Nothing in that ruling stated it was retroactive. He was made legal.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join