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.

 

Breaking: VT Judge may have to toss Cruz, Rubio & Jindal off of state's ballot

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.


LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!


There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.


That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!


There is enough precedent to show that all of these named are natural born citizens. There is no longer an argument.




posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

It's my belief and understanding that the term 'natural born citizen' has never been defined by SCOTUS, nor can they ever define it. It's a reference to 'natural law' and therefore the definition is unique to each and every person born. The drafters of the Constitution deferred to 'natural law' on this one issue and with good reason.

In Obama's case, I personally believe the fact that Hawaii was illegally annexed and the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in violation of an international treaty is important. The Kingdom still does not recognize the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution. Kingdom of Hawaii

In other words, the people of Hawaii have a right not to be labeled as U.S. citizens as long as the controversy is unsettled. It's not a 'gift' to many Native Hawaiians. Labeling them 'natural born U.S. Citizens' is a security risk because someone could enact revenge for the wrongs committed to Hawaiians by infiltrating the highest level of government.
edit on 2-1-2016 by AnonnieMuss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonnieMuss
Some of our first presidents were presidents before the constitution, as we know it, was even drafted. If you want to go back even further. So, they, would not be eligible for the offices they held.

In general, you are a natural born citizen if you are born on US soil and/or have 1 or more parents as a US citizen. That is pretty much it.

I respect the history of Hawaii, but they do not consider themselves a Kingdom, except for the group on the website you pointed out.


edit on 2-1-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: AngryCymraeg


Although that said, primaries can be very odd creatures and it might have an impact in the unlikely event of a brokered convention.


That's very true, and I hadn't thought about that. I half suspect that Cruz and Trump have struck a deal for VP if either wins the nomination... but if I'm wrong, or if Trump decides to renege on that deal -- or the pledge not to run as an Independent -- he'll use that as a sledge hammer over their head. Haha! I'd almost like to see that...



Oh, I'd love to know what's being talked about behind the scenes. The thing is that Cruz's strategy has been quite clear - cosy up to Trump as much as possible in an attempt to syphon off his supporters in the event that he implodes. The fact that he hasn't imploded is interesting for a number of reasons. Any other candidate would have been done and dusted by now, and all you have to do is look at the burning shards of the Carson campaign at the moment to see what that can be like. We have a month to go and anything can yet happen, but it'll be interesting to see what happens now that Trump has said that he's going to start paying for adverts.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.


LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!


There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.


That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!


There is enough precedent to show that all of these named are natural born citizens. There is no longer an argument.


'Natural law' is not based on precedent or even majority opinion. It is universal. Precedent would narrow the definition of the term and it is meant to be broad. 'Precedent' turns 'natural law' in 'positive law.'



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
]
Some of our first presidents were presidents before the constitution, as we know it, was even drafted. If you want to go back even further. So, they, would not be eligible for the offices they held.


Are you referring to the Presidents of the Continental Congress? If so, all but one were born in the Colonies and would have been eligible to serve as President of the United States.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: AnonnieMuss
Some of our first presidents were presidents before the constitution, as we know it, was even drafted. If you want to go back even further. So, they, would not be eligible for the offices they held.


Hence the grandfather clause "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." The only exception to the natural born eligibility requirement.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.


LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!


There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.


That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!


There is enough precedent to show that all of these named are natural born citizens. There is no longer an argument.


'Natural law' is not based on precedent or even majority opinion. It is universal. Precedent would narrow the definition of the term and it is meant to be broad. 'Precedent' turns 'natural law' in 'positive law.'


Yes and positive law is the ones we follow. There were 'intentions' that can be interpreted differently, but they do not translate into law. That is why we still argue over what, exactly, an organized militia is.

Again, most of the first presidents...even the ones before Washington, using that thinking, would have been ineligible to hold office.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.


LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!


There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.


That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!


There is enough precedent to show that all of these named are natural born citizens. There is no longer an argument.


'Natural law' is not based on precedent or even majority opinion. It is universal. Precedent would narrow the definition of the term and it is meant to be broad. 'Precedent' turns 'natural law' in 'positive law.'


Yes and positive law is the ones we follow. There were 'intentions' that can be interpreted differently, but they do not translate into law. That is why we still argue over what, exactly, an organized militia is.

Again, most of the first presidents...even the ones before Washington, using that thinking, would have been ineligible to hold office.


And again, that's why there is the grandfather clause, "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."

On this one issue, the Constitution defers to natural law. It is an anomalous law, so to speak but the term 'natural' is a reference to natural law and/or natural rights...the Bill of Rights was built on natural law and natural rights. The drafters were not looking for one all encompassing 'positive' or written definition...hence the word 'natural.'



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.


LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!


There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.


That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!


There is enough precedent to show that all of these named are natural born citizens. There is no longer an argument.


'Natural law' is not based on precedent or even majority opinion. It is universal. Precedent would narrow the definition of the term and it is meant to be broad. 'Precedent' turns 'natural law' in 'positive law.'


Yes and positive law is the ones we follow. There were 'intentions' that can be interpreted differently, but they do not translate into law. That is why we still argue over what, exactly, an organized militia is.

Again, most of the first presidents...even the ones before Washington, using that thinking, would have been ineligible to hold office.


And again, that's why there is the grandfather clause, "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."

On this one issue, the Constitution defers to natural law. It is an anomalous law, so to speak but the term 'natural' is a reference to natural law and/or natural rights...the Bill of Rights was built on natural law and natural rights. The drafters were not looking for one all encompassing 'positive' or written definition...hence the word 'natural.'


I agree, but that is how it is handled now. There will be no court action showing Rubio, Jindal or Cruz to be ineligible. I am not a fan of any, I just know how the law will pertain to them.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   


The Republicans deserve getting a hard time though, for how they went after Obama, who was actually born here.
a reply to: reldra

Ted Cruz was also a birther. Now he's going to have to defend his birth status. It's funny how his attack on Obama's birth origin is now coming around and biting him in the @ss! Poor Ted.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons



The Republicans deserve getting a hard time though, for how they went after Obama, who was actually born here.
a reply to: reldra

Ted Cruz was also a birther. Now he's going to have to defend his birth status. It's funny how his attack on Obama's birth origin is now coming around and biting him in the @ss! Poor Ted.


He deserves it too! lol

All of the same - and more- arguments, will be in the media.
edit on 2-1-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: reldra
]
Some of our first presidents were presidents before the constitution, as we know it, was even drafted. If you want to go back even further. So, they, would not be eligible for the offices they held.


Are you referring to the Presidents of the Continental Congress? If so, all but one were born in the Colonies and would have been eligible to serve as President of the United States.


The theory goes, that they weren't US citizens at the time, colonies weren't the US. I know, it's not a strong argument, people on the internet argue it anyway. besides the fact that they had parents that weren't born in the colonies....it goes on and on.
edit on 2-1-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra
Correct. No court can determine who is or is not a natural born citizen. Our courts only have jurisdiction over state or federal and constitutional laws. They don't have jurisdiction to interpret natural law. It is actually the one law where the people have the right to rise up against the government for violating natural law. Something the constitutional drafters actually recommended.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
The theory goes, that they weren't US citizens at the time, colonies weren't the US. I know, it's not a strong argument, people on the internet argue it anyway. besides the fact that they had parents that weren't born in the colonies....it goes on and on.


I see. Well they would be wrong as evidenced by the other poster pointing out the grandfather clause for citizenship requirements.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
a reply to: reldra
Correct. No court can determine who is or is not a natural born citizen. Our courts only have jurisdiction over state or federal and constitutional laws. They don't have jurisdiction to interpret natural law. It is actually the one law where the people have the right to rise up against the government for violating natural law. Something the constitutional drafters actually recommended.


True, but in what way? Would the 'founding fathers' have wanted these types of arguments? Would they have wanted the 'birthers'? I have an idea of what they would have thought of Palin or Bachmann, even if they were men. I have an idea of what they would have thought of how all of this has come to....but that is an entirely different topic. Not sure they would want 'the people' to be 'rising up' in this way, for this topic.
edit on 2-1-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: reldra
The theory goes, that they weren't US citizens at the time, colonies weren't the US. I know, it's not a strong argument, people on the internet argue it anyway. besides the fact that they had parents that weren't born in the colonies....it goes on and on.


I see. Well they would be wrong as evidenced by the other poster pointing out the grandfather clause for citizenship requirements.


What about the one that was not born in the colonies?

Actually a few. Lincoln was born in a place that eventually became part of a colony. Ulysses S. Grant and Andrew Jackson were not born in a colony.
edit on 2-1-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
Not sure they would want 'the people' to be 'rising up' in this way, for this topic.


Disagree. They would likely say we are obligated to revolt and institute a new government because they specifically deferred to natural law on the issue, they put enforcement of the law in the hands of the People, and to defy the natural law is a blatant national security risk.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra
Not sure they would want 'the people' to be 'rising up' in this way, for this topic.


Disagree. They would likely say we are obligated to revolt and institute a new government because they specifically deferred to natural law on the issue, they put enforcement of the law in the hands of the People, and to defy the natural law is a blatant national security risk.



Should we be revolting right now then? Forming organized militias to stop Ted Cruz from running? I don;t think that was the intent.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
What about the one that was not born in the colonies?


Good question, I do not know the answer to that.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join