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.

 

Forcing the issue of Natural Born Citizenship: How to get standing to have the question resolved.

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Obama's case revolves around the dispute of where he was born and how long his mother lived outside the US before Obama was born.

If he was born in Hawaii its a non issue.
If he was born outside the US then its very relevant.




posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Obama's case revolves around the dispute of where he was born


Except there was never doubt where Obama was born, in Hawaii.


If he was born in Hawaii its a non issue.


Lock that one in!


If he was born outside the US then its very relevant.


There is zero evidence he was born anywhere but Hawaii.

Obama's case revolved around his fathers race.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Here is how Savorgnan V. United States becomes relevant to this case.
This was a case on a native born American Citizen who became an Italian citizen in 1940, and lived with her husband from 1941 to 1945. She maintained she kept her American Citizenship, but the courts found she did not. As per the Citizen Act of 1907 and the Nationality Act of 1940.
The petitioner, Rosette Savorgnan met her husband while he was working as Italian Vice consul in St. Louis. They met, fell in love, and then wanted to marry. However, she was informed that under Italian Law, she would have to become an Italian citizen before consent could be given. She signed the documentation and application, though did not renounce her citizenship to the USA. After she got the Italian citizenship, she and the gentleman was married. They moved and she lived in Rome until 1945. She sought to return to the USA and was denied citizenship, and brought suit. The court determined, that as she did not keep any residence in the USA, had moved out her effects from the country that in fact she did indeed renounced her citizenship from the United States and had lost her citizenship from the country. Mind you that she only won the case once and lost the next 2 appeals, including the US Supreme court case.

You ask how this is relevant to the Ted Cruz and his ability to be president, there is legal precedence as put forth in that case, where the Ted’s mother, married a foreign national, moved out of country, lived in another country, had no permanent residence, voted and had all rights as a Canadian citizen during that time frame, thus showing that she had renounced her citizenship to the USA, even without requiring her to formally renounce it. And to which, even after her husband had abandoned her the first time, she did not return to the United States, until after Cruz Sr, and her had reconciled their marriage and then returned, getting citizenship via her husband a Cuban national under the Cuban act.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Here is how Savorgnan V. United States becomes relevant to this case.
This was a case on a native born American Citizen who became an Italian citizen in 1940, and lived with her husband from 1941 to 1945.

When was the judgement made? How is it relevant in light of this, from 1967?


Held: Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. Perez v. Brownell, supra, overruled. Pp. 256-268.

(a) Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by Congress before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a mature and well considered dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, is to the same effect. Pp. 257-261.

(b) The Fourteenth Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . ." completely controls the status of citizenship, and prevents the cancellation of petitioner's citizenship. Pp. 262-268.

www.law.cornell.edu...



edit on 1/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

Obama's case revolves around the dispute of where he was born and how long his mother lived outside the US before Obama was born.

If he was born in Hawaii its a non issue.
If he was born outside the US then its very relevant.


I understand; my concern is the school of thought that even if Obama were born here, thus having natural born citizenship, if his mother had not fulfilled the residency requirements, that Obama's natural born citizenship and all its attendant privileges can be taken away. And not just for Obama, of course -- it could apply to anyone in the same or similar conditions.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
if his mother had not fulfilled the residency requirements,


There is no residency requirement for anyone born in the USA, like Obama was.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The judgement was made in the 1950’s. However, case is very valid, and the points made are substantial to the Ted’s mother. She did marry a foreign national, moved with him and lived in Canada, including getting and acquiring Canadian citizenship, did not keep a residence in the United States, thus by her actions did indeed renounce her citizenship to the United States, and fall under the Expatriate Act, along with the various citizenship and Nationality Acts. And if that is not enough, we are only looking at the US laws, and not the Canadian ones.

Apparently, here is how such would have worked up until 1977. In accordance with Canadian citizenship laws, once a person becomes a citizen of Canada, including family, that would be wife included, that they are no longer considered citizens of their originating country. That means when Mrs. Cruz moved to Canada and her husband got citizenship there, she would have been granted such as well, and ceased to be a citizen of the United States of America. And at that time frame dual citizenship was frowned on by the United States of America and not recognized by Canada. And unless Mrs, Cruz or her husband a CRBA for Ted at the time of his birth in 1970, if they did then it needs to be released, as then it would go further in his favor when it comes to being a natural born citizen. However if no CRBA was filed, then he is a naturalized citizen and thus ineligible to be President of the United States of America.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

The judgement was made in the 1950’s. However, case is very valid, and the points made are substantial to the Ted’s mother.
No. It isn't valid. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that no law can remove citizenship involuntarily. It's plain as day. Unless Cruz's mother voluntarily renounced her citizenship she remained a US citizen.


That means when Mrs. Cruz moved to Canada and her husband got citizenship there, she would have been granted such as well, and ceased to be a citizen of the United States of America
No.

Cruz was born of an American citizen. Cruz is a natural born citizen.


edit on 1/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The declaration has to be made to U.S. Consular officials in some foreign country.

Consulates are run by the State Department.

The State Department keeps records of everyone with a passport. It remembers your passport applications, reports of requests for assistance (like, say, you asked them to find you a doctor when you were touring overseas), stuff like that.

I expect your renunciation would be recorded in your file alongside your canceled passport.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
There you are incorrect, she did willingly and knowingly give up her citizenship. It was not stripped by law, but by the fact that she did marry a foreign national, who at the time was still a citizen of Cuba, and then by her moving to Canada, and him becoming a Canadian citizen. And in that time frame, there is no evidence to show that she maintained a residence in the United States, in fact, all evidence points to her staying in Canada, and if they had not reconciled a few years later, would have stayed in Canada. He maintained his dual citizenship for years, only giving it up in May, 2014.


But how about we see what the courts have to say on this subject, as there is compelling evidence to suggest that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
she did willingly and knowingly give up her citizenship.


How about you show the paperwork for that then!


It was not stripped by law, but by the fact


Citizenship cannot be removed from a citizen, they have to formally give it up.


there is compelling evidence to suggest that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America.


Not really.... but remember the courts have shown Obama is a natural born US citizen and some people still refuse to accept that fact!



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce
I never once questioned the citizenship of Obama. He was born in Hawaii, after it was a state, to a mother who was an American, and resided in the country for a good 5 years. There was no question of his citizenship and it looked as though that his father was coming her to stay and she would not be moving back to his home country either. The added information that the marriage between Obama's marriage was illegal only makes this even more that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.

But In Ted Cruz's case, it is not so different and actually as I have pointed out in the prior posts, his mother, married Ted's father a Cuban National. This was before the break down of the Cuban/USA relationships. They did move to Canada, and Ted's father got citizenship while living in Canada. His mother would have been granted such by virtue of being married to a Canadian Citizen, and Canada did not recognize dual citizenship at the time, and it was considered to be when one applied for and got citizenship to another country, they ceased being a citizen of their originating country. Ted was born in Canada, after both of them had been there for 3 years. Even he states that his father became a Canadian citizen, and both were on the voters roles at that time frame. Canada did not change its laws until after 1977, after Ted and his mother had left the country, and returned to the USA. And them getting citizenship in the USA was simple, as Cruz Sr, even though he was a Canadian Citizen at the time, would have been, along with his family, automatic citizenship under the Cuban act of 1966. And as Cruz Sr, abandoned his family, only to return several years later, was considered then a citizen of the United States of America. The US government did not take away Cruz's mothers citizenship, she willingly gave it up, to stay with her husband.

In that time frame, there is no evidence of any residence belonging to her in the United States of America, no property or mailing address can be found for his mother. As much as I would dearly love to get into the records of the US State Department, unfortunately I am not Ted Cruz or his child or his mother or his father, and thus the records are determined private at this time frame until he decides to get ahold of and release said records.

Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

There you are incorrect, she did willingly and knowingly give up her citizenship.
False. A formal renunciation is required.


A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
sign an oath of renunciation

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

travel.state.gov...

Produce her signed oath and I will agree that Cruz is not a natural born citizen.

edit on 1/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


Not really.... but remember the courts have shown Obama is a natural born US citizen and some people still refuse to accept that fact!


Not really...

My best guess is that Obama was born in Hawaii -- but it's just a guess, because I cannot trust the paperwork provided.

If, as Obama claims, he was legally adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia, then his original birth certificate would have been sealed upon the adoption, and another one issued with his stepfather as his father. NO ONE -- including Obama -- should even have access to the original birth certificate showing Obama Sr as his father without a court order unsealing the documents. Perhaps Obama was legally adopted in Indonesia, and no corresponding paperwork was filed or recorded in Hawaii, in which case his original birth certificate is still available. We really don't know what the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is, because too many people played politics with the issue.

That's just one of the many irregularities regarding Obama's records... and the absolutely pathetic manner in which the issue was handled. Which is why I totally support the subject of the OP and forcing the issue of not only defining "natural born citizen" but to also require appropriate documentation of said status for future candidates.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The reasons the courts have ruled the way they have on Obama is the people bringing the challenge lack standing. Its up to them to show standing and not Obama. Since Obama refuses to release documents, its created a tidy little catch 22 for those trying.

You cant have standing without the documents and you can get the documents unless you have standing.

As for Hawaii there is the issue of his social security number being from Connecticut. There is the issue of the missing archives for international travel manifests for hawaii during the time he and his mom came to hawaii...



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

The reasons the courts have ruled the way they have on Obama is the people bringing the challenge lack standing. Its up to them to show standing and not Obama. Since Obama refuses to release documents, its created a tidy little catch 22 for those trying.


Yeah, and I have a big problem with these dismissals for lack of standing. It seems to me that any citizen should have standing when the law of the land is being violated.

Regarding, Cruz, though, I just read that Trump is considering suing Cruz regarding his eligibility. I would think/hope/expect that Trump could claim the needed particularized injury needed for standing... but I don't know.

Here it is: Trum p: ‘I’d Do The Public A Big Favor’ By Suing Ted Cruz Over Eligibility To Be President [VIDEO]


You cant have standing without the documents and you can get the documents unless you have standing.


This is also where burden of proof -- and the wrong assignation of such -- comes into play. It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the candidate to prove their qualifications. NOT the citizen who wants proof of same. We keep birth records and such for exactly that purpose; it's counter-productive to deny their availability and thus their very function and purpose.


As for Hawaii there is the issue of his social security number being from Connecticut. There is the issue of the missing archives for international travel manifests for hawaii during the time he and his mom came to hawaii...


I did not know that -- thank you! Nothing suspicious there, eh?



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
because I cannot trust the paperwork provided.


So you cannot trust the Dept of health announcements in the paper, nor any BC issued by any state....


That's just one of the many irregularities regarding Obama's records


There are no irregularities, care to list the ones you claim exist?



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

The reasons the courts have ruled the way they have on Obama is the people bringing the challenge lack standing. Its up to them to show standing and not Obama.


Garbage, why do you ignore all the court cases that people lost that had standing? Like Ankeny v. Daniels

"ased upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."



Since Obama refuses to release documents,


Obama has released more documents than any previous President, so what documents has he not released?


You cant have standing without the documents and you can get the documents unless you have standing.


Wrong, as I have shown above


As for Hawaii there is the issue of his social security number being from Connecticut.


SSN's are NOT from any state.


Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.

www.ssa.gov...

So basically you are just spouting much debunked birther crap!
edit on 18-1-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


So you cannot trust the Dept of health announcements in the paper, nor any BC issued by any state....


Exactly.

At this point, I don't trust anyone in government about anything...



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: hellobruce


So you cannot trust the Dept of health announcements in the paper, nor any BC issued by any state....


Exactly.

At this point, I don't trust anyone in government about anything...


So no one is eligible to be President as you trust no BC's from anywhere....



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join