I suppose it was inevitable that one of the original Obama eligibility litigants would prove consistent and bring a lawsuit against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on the same grounds that they sued to have Obama barred from the ballot, namely that they aren’t constitutionally eligible to run. Michael Voeltz, three-time loser with his Obama cases, has filed against Cruz and Rubio in Broward County, Florida. The case number is CACE15022044. Voeltz filed pro se.
Defendants are:
- Republican Party of Florida Executive Committee
- Secretary of State of Florida Ken Detzner
- Senator Marco Rubio
- Senator Ted Cruz
In his “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunction,” Mr. Voeltz says:
Plaintiff asserts that these two candidates are naturalized citizens, or at the very least, simply fail to comply with the common law Supreme Court established definition of natural born citizen. …
Plaintiff’s right to vote will be diluted, debased and desecrated by the presence of Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio on the Florida ballot.
What follows are my observations on the complaint, and not an attempt at an adequate summary of the lengthy brief.
Voeltz argues a scenario where Cruz or Rubio is ruled ineligible, resulting in the loss of the vote for everyone who voted for one of them—but presumably Mr. Voeltz will not be among that number, even though he is the one bring the legal action. Nowhere does Voeltz explain how his personal right to vote is threatened.
Voeltz rejects the enforcement of presidential eligibility being a political question by saying “There is no demonstrable textual assignment within the Constitution of the task of vetting eligibility of presidential candidates solely to a branch of government,” rejecting the argument that the 20th Amendment does just this. Voeltz says that it is a judicial question. (Of course the 20th Amendment deals with the “President elect,” not presidential candidates.)
On the main point, the argument that Cruz and Rubio are not eligible, Voeltz hits Cruz with this:
If Ted Cruz would not have been considered a US citizen at birth in 1933 [prior to 1934 citizenship was only passed by fathers to persons born overseas], if born under the same circumstance, he certainly cannot be a natural born citizen today.
Voeltz argues that Cruz is a US citizen by a naturalization act. Where Voeltz goes markedly off track is when he shifts the naturalization argument to Marco Rubio, born in the United States, making a fictional claim that the Supreme Court in “Afronym (sic)v. Rusk” called persons born in the US to alien parents “naturalized.” Clearly Voeltz does not understand the Supreme Court decision in US v. Wong, which determined that natural born citizenship under the Constitution was conferred by the common law, which only relied on place of birth and not the citizenship of parents.
Rather than the English Common Law, Voeltz says that the “law of nations” defined citizenship under the Constitution. He makes a good start, but then comes to a gap too broad to argue, so he leaps the chasm with an appeal to obvious truth:
The science of the relationship between nations certainly encompasses citizenship laws, a subject of treaties and friction between nations.
Then Voeltz tries to use Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the codification of “natural law, or the law of nations.” He also brings up the apocryphal rejection of the “Hamilton draft.”
I can think of some better things that Michael Voeltz could have done with the $401 filing fee, but it’s his money.
To follow the case online, visit the Clerk of Court web site, and click the Search button on case CACE15022044.
So Voeltz is a Republican now.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/293622964/Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgment-and-Injunction-50#scribd
Great find! Is there any indication that it has actually been filed?
I’d say he’s just wanking.
Filed in Boward County and pending (case # CACE15022044)
http://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Web2/CaseSearch/Details/?caseid=ODM2MDkxNg%3d%3d-VCsDX7ZBy7I%3d&caseNum=CACE15022044&category=CV
[Go here, and search for case number CACE15022044. Doc]
I get a server-side exception from that URL (looks like there’s probably some sort of session ID encoded in it). Going to: http://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Web2/CaseSearch/Index/ and entering the case # (with the “CACE” as part of it: just entering the numeric part came up empty, even though their example only showed numbers) worked for me.
New take on Wong Kim Ark:
“11) The Supreme Court has held, in Afronym [sic] v. Rusk, 387 US 253 (1967) , that in the case of Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898), that Wong Kim Ark, born in the US of legal resident alien parents was naturalized or “conferred citizenship” in the same way as “naturalization” is defined by INS 1952.”
And he makes this conspiratorial mistake at (10):
“This regulation was oddly added only recently by the Obama administration (7 FAM 1131.6-3. Not Citizens by “Naturalization” (CT: CON-474; 08-19-2013)”
But in fact this was only a modification of 1131.6-3. Here is 1131.6-3 in 2007 based on the 1998 manual.
“7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA)
both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a
person after birth.” Clearly, then, Americans who acquired their citizenship by birth
abroad to U.S. citizens are not considered naturalized citizens under either act.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070817162959/http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
So no, the Obama Administration did not add the Not Citizens by “Naturalization” section.
Linked just worked for me on the same desktop.
But not on my IPad (ArgumentException error).
I originally searched by name Voeltz, Michael
Voeltz also makes this inane statement
“There are arguably now two naturalization acts codified into the Constitution itself, Art. 2. S. 1 C. 5 in the organic Constitution, naturalizing the residents of the states at the time of ratification, and the 14th Amendment in the amended Constitution, …”
That would mean members of the Senate and the House were not eligible in the 1788 election since they were not citizens of the United States for “the past 9 years” or “the past seven years”, respectively.
Now that’s funny. I was responsible for that 8-19-2013 edit, I kid you not. Oh my god, do I get promoted?
How so?
Okay, you’ll notice that the old text went like this:
“Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA)
both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a
person after birth.””
Those were the wrong statutes. If I recall correctly, the 2013 edition of the FAM just referred to the INA statute, but it still cited the wrong section. I noticed that, and pointed it out to a fellow commenter on the Huffington Post, who is a US government employee; he told me he was going to bring it to the attention of an acquaintance or colleague of his at the State Department. Not long after, he told me to take a look at that section– and there was the edit:
“Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term “naturalization” means “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.””
So Voeltz’s big conspiracy was just a correction of a mis-identified statute. What a maroon.
This government employee who had brought this to the attention of the State Department recently got in touch with me on Facebook. I’ll have to pass this on to him. It really, really cracks me up.
I’ve looked back through some of my old e-mails, and found this comment from the government guy on the Huffington Post, dated 8-15-13:
“Re 7 FAM 1131.6-3 references, I located a few contacts in the 7 FAM coordinators and quality assurance sections. One agrees that the references are wrong (and yours correct) in the FAM and thought it had been changed, but obviously not.
Bottom line, it is being looked at. If I get further information, I’ll share. It will be a good day if we see the change in print.”
They also added this”to a U.S. citizen parent or parents” where it use to say this “to U.S. citizens”.
I always assumed the change was due to birther nonsense about parents being plural.
I found the first comment where I brought it up to him, on August 9. Ten days later, they’d fixed it. That’s not bad.
I just read the decision in Afroyim v. Rusk, and I do not see any way that Voeltz could use it to support the idea that Marco Rubio is a naturalized citizen. Wong Kim Ark was ruled a citizen by the Court in his case, and part of that argument rested on the 14th Amendment, but the 14th Amendment is not a statute under the authority of the naturalization power of Congress. It is the Constitution itself.
When passed, the 14th Amendment was understood that it was declarative of what had been the law of the land since the Constitution was ratified. It’s purpose was (according to Afroyim) to prevent citizenship from being taken away. Also the Supreme Court said that Wong would have been a citizen under the Constitution, with or without the 14th Amendment.
Voeltz’s case will be dismissed because he failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted (as no relief is possible).
Voeltz should have spent $10,000 and registered as a candidate.
The dumbass, it is strong with this one. I’m just kind of skimming through the complaint, which is just plain sloppy if nothing else, and I see he’s misrepresenting the State Department’s position:
“…the State Department has stated that those persons who are natural born citizens pursuant to a statute may not be eligible for the Presidency.”
(pp 13-14)
One could just as easily say that the State Department has stated that such persons may be eligible for the presidency.
But he then says,
“Even though the State Department has doubts about Ted Cruz’s eligibility for the office of President, and those doubts are well known, the state of Florida nevertheless has put him on the Primary ballot.”
That’s not remotely what the State Department said. The only reason the issue is brought up at all is to let the consular officers know that the State Department DOESN’T have a position, one way or the other, on it.
Voeltz then goes on to say,
“If Ted Cruz would not have been considered a US citizen at birth if born in 1933, if born under the same circumstance, he certainly cannot be a natural born citizen today.”
So why’s he leaving Ben Carson out of his suit? Carson would not have been considered a US citizen at birth in 1857. Can he be a natural born citizen today?
As a resident of said county, I may have to keep track of this in case it actually goes somewhere.
Oh, that was a good one!
I may well be missing something, but I see nothing in Afroyim v. Rusk that even remotely speaks to what Voeltz is claiming and the case is not even remotely similar.
He is hung up on the word “confer”. In the 1952 Immigration Act the definition of naturalization is “the conferring of nationality” and in Afroyim v. Rusk Justice Black said, “The Court then held that Congress could not do anything to abridge or affect his [Wong Kim Ark] citizenship conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Therefore according to Voeltz, the Afroyim decision held that Wong was naturalized.
This is actually an interesting point: when birthers misquote Vattel, they always cling to the original 18th century edition (ie father only) (let’s forget about the false two parents interpretation) and refuse to acknowledge the later versions, that eventually granted an equal right to the mother. But obviously they don’t mind ignoring this reasoning when it comes to Ben Carson.
Actually, very little of the argument relied upon the 14th Amendment. The only portion of the majority’s opinion that relied on the 14th Amendment was Section V, which basically came up with the conclusion that the 14th Amendment was declaratory of the Common Law, and changed nothing. There might be some of the arguments surrounding the 14th Amendment in Section VI, which basically said that the common law and 14th Amendment applied to the Chinese.
If the 14th Amendment was never passed, and you took out section V of the opinion, the argument changes very little. Here’s a basic summery of the argument.
I. The Constitution does not define “citizen” or “natural born citizen”, so we must look to the Common Law for these definitions.
II. In England, anybody who was born within the realm, with very few exceptions, was a Natural Born Subject. Subject and CItizen are interchangeable.
III. This law was in force in the colonies before the Revolution and the states after the Revolution.
IV. U.S. Law (and even european law at the time) is not based upon citizenship by descent.
V. The 14th Amendment was declaratory of this principle, and really changed nothing.
VI. Chinese are not excluded from the law.
VII. Wong did nothing that would remove his citizenship after birth.
Therefore Wong is a citizen.
Now, if you take out the basic argument of section V, the argument still makes sense. I wouldn’t call it obiter dictum, because the 14th Amendment does have citizenship law, and would need to be part of the opinion in order to do a full history, however, the 14th Amendment really changed nothing other than putting this principle into the Constitution.
If he is basing his fantasy on that then I think the word describing it is stretching(well beyond credibility), that and torturing what a decision said to meet his fantasy, since the court most certainly didn’t say what he claims in WKA.
Technically, the reason why he wouldn’t be able to be considered a citizen would be because of the Dred Scott case, which was overruled by the court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. There was pleanty of law that granted citizenship to free black men, and in fact, there are pleanty of quotes from legal scholars, such as William Rawle, where if a slave was freed, he automatically gained citizenship.
It’s a decent point, though.
But in 1857, Dred Scott was the law.
To me, this redundancy of the 14th Amendment is the magic bullet against birthers. The entirety of their argument becomes moot if the 14th Amendment didn’t change the law to create a new class of “naturalized at birth” citizens.
[Slartibartfast December 20, 2015 at 2:06 pm (Quote) #
To me, this redundancy of the 14th Amendment is the magic bullet against birthers. The entirety of their argument becomes moot if the 14th Amendment didn’t change the law to create a new class of “naturalized at birth” citizens.]
Considering two post ago…
[That any type of [U.S. Citizen] is a [natural born Citizen] regardless of whether they are naturalized or natural born Citizen – the two types they say exist.
This again simply makes all Citizens the same as natural born Citizens and in such makes the 14th Amendment supersillous, redundant, and frivolous.
It makes the Constitution without or of no affect. .and it represents conspiracy against the Constitution.]
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/12/birther-litigant-sees-the-light/#comments
[ Slartibartfast December 15, 2015 at 1:17 am (Quote) #
Mr. Judy,
Are you intentionally misrepresenting our position because you know your position is so weak that you can’t defend it or are you so thick that you really don’t understand the obvious position that has been laid out here hundreds or even thousands of times?]
Once Again..
Slartibartfast December 20, 2015 at 2:06 pm (Quote) #
To me, this redundancy of the 14th Amendment is the magic bullet against birthers. The entirety of their argument becomes moot if the 14th Amendment didn’t change the law to create a new class of “naturalized at birth” citizens.
[CRJ -This again simply makes all Citizens the same as natural born Citizens and in such makes the 14th Amendment supersillous, redundant, and frivolous.]
What rest in the entirety is Anti Birthers claiming the Constitution on one hand but on the other claiming they are suffering all the Fools who wrote it, and their Reason.
I don’t know what kind of cognitive disorder this is, but there’s definitely something wrong here.
Mr. Judy,
Stupid, willfully ignorant and an unrepentant domestic terrorist is no way to go through life.
I know you can’t do anything about the first, but the latter two are all on you.
The 14th Amendment (the citizenship clause anyway) is redundant because anyone born or naturalized under the jurisdiction of the United States has always been a US citizen. This in no way takes away the distinction between natural born and naturalized which, as always, refers to citizenship conferred at birth versus citizenship obtained later in life.
Misrepresenting what other people say is dishonest and pathetic. You really need to stop putting out such negative karma—you’re incurring a debt you probably will never be able to pay.
I can never quite make up my mind if Judy’s behavior is simply dishonesty, or simply stupid, ignorance, and general illiteracy as there is a very obvious and demonstrated inability to actually read and comprehend even simple English, but I’ll go with general intellectual dishonesty on top of the rest of it though.
how about “All of the above”???
Slartibartfast December 21, 2015 at 12:21 am (Quote) #
[Mr. Judy,
Stupid, willfully ignorant and an unrepentant]
You adjectives sound like you are a pupil of Trump? Of course my Heavenly Father knows different about me, helping me along the way. Teaching me all that I must do to live with him some day. I am a child of God and he most certainly has sent me here.
@CodyRobertJudy @Drudge_Report_ OBAMA BLAMES Race v. Face his Inelgblty @TIME @RollingStone
https://t.co/LdHXrEvGdF https://t.co/V45Fv6iTyi
Drudge FAVORITED that Tweet (lol)
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/679024139005386752
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/us/politics/president-obama-accuses-donald-trump-of-exploiting-working-class-fears.html?referer=http://www.drudgereport.com/
Voeltz left a comment at BR.
Obama conspiracies already picked up on this case filed 12/17/15 in Fla.. They immediately go into overdrive to discredit, even though it is HISTORICAL FACT that Ted Cruz would not have been even a citizen if born under the same circumstance in 1933 (therefore he cannot be a natural born Citizen today); and Marco Rubio would not have been considered a US Citizen until his parents naturalized according to NA 1790, 1795, 1802 (therefore he cannot be a natural born Citizen today).
Baker v. Carr holds that I do not have to be the only one affected by a voting rights violation to have standing (suing for violation of right to vote by dilution and degradation of the vote because ineligible candidates will consume 20-30% of the votes). Of course Dr. Con uses the typical “lack of reading comprehension” OBOT smear. Afroyim v. Rusk holds that those born or naturalized and deemed subject to the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment are “conferred citizenship by the 14th Amendment” (i.e naturalized, by definition) and that the conferred citizenship cannot be taken away; including Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the same circumstance as Rubio.
Neither Cruz nor Rubio would have been considered US citizens without Congressional power to enact uniform naturalization statutes. OBOTs continue to spread the disinfo that the 14th Amendment is not a vehicle of naturalization. If you are not a natural born Citizen (born in the US of US citizen parents) then you are naturalized, either passively by statute or by oath (“any means whatsoever”– INS 1952 (23)) by operation of the 14th Amendment— Afroyim v. Rusk confirms this, and despite WKA dicta saying that those born in the US “need no naturalization”, Afroyim says that WKA was naturalized (conferred citizenship) by the 14th Amendment itself (Afroyim was in 1967, WKA 1898). “At birth” means “after birth”, it doesn’t mean “before birth” or “during birth.” Logic kills the lie.
“Eligible” means “capable of being elected” (Black’s Law). The SOS of Fla (Detzner) has made Cruz and Rubio “capable of being elected” by ministerially placing them on the ballot. Ministerial duty is judicially reviewable.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/12/birther-v-…
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/12/video-sheriff-arpaio-takes-on-nbc-news.html
Yes your heavenly father knows you’re an unrepentant terrorist.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 21, 2015 at 3:13 pm (Quote) # [Yes your heavenly father knows you’re an unrepentant terrorist.]
This is the USA and your ideological biggotry is really not comprehensive to our Freedom of Religion, and in particular Christian Beliefs in regards to the Repentance Process. ..where when something is paid for its forgotten.
To understand your representation we have to not only find Country’s that do not tolerate Religeous Freedom like Saudia Arabia, but we also must find Delusionary States willing to dictate terms of Religeous Sentiment eliminating Free Speech in bizarre combinations of eliminating Facts in the creation of a state subsidized delusion.
In the STATES to restrict Freedom of Religion there is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocratic monarchy in which Sunni Islam is the official state religion based on firm Sharia law and non-Muslims are not allowed to hold Saudi citizenship.
Children born to Muslim fathers are by law deemed Muslim, and conversion from Islam to another religion is considered apostasy and punishable by death.
Blasphemy against Sunni Islam is also punishable by death, but the more common penalty is a [ long prison sentence.]
In States Prohibiting Free Speech we have to find States that don’t allow Critics. Who endorse more fully the term STATE SPONSORED “hate speech” as a contemporary example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a [protected individual] or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
That seems more the purpose of your ideologue in reference to my Religion and those who share your intolerance , unforgiving nature, and prosecutorial Luciferian Accusationional Doctrine in violation of the U.S. Constitution that represents much more mercy and love.
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/02/fight-over-forgiveness-lds-church.html?m=1
There are many Dissidents of Russia, China, North Korea which is a person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state that mirror the reflection of my own persecution which you continue in really unsavory and anti American rhetoric to refute as unpaid for. This is False and Fraudulant.
Exposing you for who and what you are is easy , and you should apologise.
It would seem the only person who doesn’t know that Judy is an unrepentant terrorist is … Judy.
And Judy, again, has failed to abide by the simple request to stay on topic; this article is about Voeltz challenging Cruz and Rubio.
Mr. Judy,
I think you mean “your adjectives”, not “you adjectives”, unless you are trying to sound illiterate (in which case, well done!).
You have objectively earned all of the terms I used to describe you so what I say has at least one characteristic that distinguishes it from anything Trump says: it’s true. Regarding your “heavenly father”, I don’t know if the sky daddy you worship is so petty and petulant that he would want his followers to behave as you do or if, like everything else, you’ve gotten his wishes wrong too, but I’ve known several Mormons who I think would be ashamed of you.
Maybe you should consider the possibility that heavenly father sent you to us so that YOU could learn from us. You would probably be a better servant of your heavenly father if you were to learn a little about integrity and critical thinking and put it to use. Or doesn’t your conception of your heavenly father value those principles?
Voeltz seems to be fixated on the 1933 law, wasn’t it replaced several times before either Rubio or Cruz were even born?
The 1933 law (Sec. 1993 of the Revised Statutes) was amended in 1934 to allow transmission of citizenship by a US citizen mother.
The law in 1933:
“All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States,”
Act of February 10, 1855, Section 1, 10 Stat. 604. So basically, the law Voeltz wants to return to is the law which was in effect in 1857. Like Dred Scott was.
The amended law:
“Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child,”
Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.
Oh, and the 1934 law was repealed by the Nationality Act of 1940, effective January 13, 1941; which was in turn repealed by the current Immigration and Nationality Act, effective December 24, 1952.
And the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 made the transmission of citizenship by a US citizen mother retroactive to May 24, 1934.
So in other words, Voeltz gots more nada.
This is a birther misreading of the 1790 Act. I can’t comment on the other 2. His misunderstanding is taking the naturalization of a child born overseas to an alien who becomes a citizen under the act when the parent naturalizes and applying it a child born of an alien in the United States who was born a citizen and needed no naturalization.
@Slartibartfast
[I’ve known several Mormons who I think would be ashamed of you.]
Really? That’s hard to believe.. Beings my Delivered Message was one for them to REPENT.
[ Maybe you should consider the possibility that heavenly father sent you to us so that YOU could learn from us. You would probably be a better servant of your heavenly father if you were to learn a little about integrity and critical thinking and put it to use.]
I think this is VERY TRUE., If I can take your shit I can take anyone’s. On a serious note I love you guys and I have learned a tremendous amount from all of you. I really appreciate you all.
I just think your confused about a couple of things
1- NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
2- The Qualifications of our Constitution for the OFFICE of President.
3- TIME and the incentive of Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents
4- The fact you gloat about victories in Court but avoid the issue on the Merits at all cost in Court.
5- The relatively small THINKTANK you swim in you subscribe to the Whole World when this website ranks like 15M to BR’s top 1,000 ranking.
6- The FACT your all very talented and intelligent ladies & gentleman, but the GENERAL POPULATION isn’t fooled because your swimming upstream of common sense, national security, and U.S. History.
7- YOU do not comprehend the damages your doing as a minority defrauding the majority in order to Win.
8- You could well be responsible for flushing the entire Democratic Party down the tubes. The 1000 +losses since 2008 for D’s testify Obama has been the single greatest gift to Republicans they could have hoped for.
9- I don’t hold it against you, because I think you are starting to see the writing on the wall yourselves.
10- Of course I’d love to have you on my Campaign because you do think out-of-the-box and could ultimately be the greatest defenders of me because you know more about me than most do.
11- I think we could win!
12- Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are proof Millions of Dollars can still lose elections. Its not about the pigment of skin, its about the [uncontested natural born Citizen] Candidate who you know could beat Trump.
@Bob [It would seem the only person who doesn’t know].. How to stay on topic is @Bob lol
The Jackie Chiles gambit…
That’s totally inappropriate. It’s lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous!
It’s outrageous, egregious, preposterous.
The 14th Amendment did not make blacks natural born Citizens, it made them “citizens”. The children of blacks born after 1868 could be natural born Citizens if born in the US to US Citizen parents. Carson was born in the US to US citizen parents after 1868, so he is a nbC.
The Act of 1934 did not make the children of US Citizen mother/ foreign fathers born abroad natural born Citizens, it made them citizens. Therefore Ted Cruz is not a natural born Citizen, just citizen, but his children could be nbC if born in the US to a US citizen mother.
See, logic is easy!
I do not see any logical consistency in your comment. It is a non sequitur.
You say: “the Act of 1934 did not make the children of US Citizen mother/ foreign fathers born abroad natural born Citizens, it made them citizens. Therefore Ted Cruz is not a natural born Citizen, just citizen,but his children could be nbC if born in the US to a US citizen mother”;
You have to assume your own definition of natural born citizen (one that has never been adopted by any court or constitutional authority) in order to reach your conclusion. If “natural born citizen” means (as the Supreme Court in Wong said it did in the citation from Dicey) born a citizen, then your entire argument falls apart.
I think your brief is better than some birther briefs I have read, but citizenship law in the United States derives from the English Law, not the Gallic traditions in Vattel’s book. This is well settled.
As for the NA 1790, 1795 1802, and the provision that the children of those naturalized would be naturalized if dwelling in the US; those NAs make no mention of the place of birth of the children, only to where they were residing, so it applies to those born in the US and to those born abroad (Dr. Con is adding words that are not there).
Sec. 4 NA 1802 was applied in the SCOTUS to a child born abroad who moved to the US and was “dwelling” in the US at the time the child’s father was naturalized, but that doesn’t mean that the provision did not also apply to children born domestically of alien parents.
Where the children “dwelt” was the determining factor at the time of the father’s naturalization, not where they were born. If a child was born to an alien father in 1795 in the US and moved abroad, and the father was naturalized in 1800, and the child moved back to the US in 1802, that child would need to be naturalized by oath. If the child was dwelling in the US in 1800, then the child would be naturalized by the father’s naturalization.
Again, that provision made those children “citizens” not natural born Citizens, therefore Marco Rubio is a “citizen,” but his children could be nbC if born in the US to a US citizen mother. Wong Kim Ark made the child of resident aliens a “citizen”, not natural born Citizen (“conferred citizenship by the 14th Amendment” (Afroyim v. Rusk)), which could not be removed. Therefor Rubio is a “citizen” not nbC.
“Naturalization” is “the conferring of nationality, by ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER” (INS 1952(23)). Afroyim v Rusk was applying that definition from 15 years before to the case of WKA. The 14th Amendment “confers nationality”, therefore it naturalizes.
As for the words “shall be considered as natural born Citizens” in NA 1790, that was a statutory provision allowing the children of US Citizens born abroad to be eligible to be POTUS (probably for the benefit of children of US diplomats, who by law of nations would not have been considered as citizens of the foreign country they were born in). The provision did not say that they were nbC, but “considered as” nbC, i.e considered as eligible to be POTUS (the only reason that the distinction exists in the US const.).
Dr. Conspiracy December 22, 2015 at 8:46 am (Quote) #
“I do not see any logical consistency in your comment. It is a non sequitur”.
Of course you don’t, but logical it is.
Gray even said that Minor v. Happersett “resorted to the common law” to define nbC. Considering that BCL makes no distinction as to the parents, only place of birth “within the realm” to determine nbS, and Minor specifically made reference to US citizenship of the parents to determine nbC, he must have been referring to international common law (law of nations) (See WKA @ 655). If BCL was the determining factor to make WKA a US citizen then Gray would not have referred to the parents legal residence. All he would have to say is that “WKA was born in the US so he is a citizen” (and nbC)– case closed, but he did not.
You have to assume that nbS is the same as nbC to make your assertion, which is not supported by any definition issued by SCOTUS..
What is illogical is to assert that anyone born in the US, w/o regard to parents nationality, is a nbC (or even “citizen”– since it creates a situation where the children are US citizens and the parents are not– totally illogical, and kidnapping, but that argument is for another time) when the very purpose of the requirement is “prevention of foreign influence.”
This is easy. Logic destroys the lie E V E R Y T I M E.
While those acts do not talk about the place of birth it is rather obvious from the context, since these are naturalization acts. As the Supreme Court said in Scott v. Sandford, Congress has no power to naturalize anyone born in the United States. Can you find one person in the history of the United States who was born in the country and then called a naturalized citizen? Numerous state statutes, which defined citizenship at the ratification of the Constitution, have no parental requirement.
It is also clear from the Supreme Court decision in US v. Wong, and it’s comprehensive analysis of the historical sources, that the children of aliens born in the United States were born as citizens, and not in need of any naturalization.
You haven’t read US v. Wong, apparently.
I think you meant bigotry not bigotry. How is you saying you’re an unrepentant domestic terrorist ideological bigotry? Ummm that’s not how it works. You doing the time has nothing to do with repentance. Repentance has to do with you accepting responsibility for your actions, owning up and admitting you were wrong.
The rest of what you wrote had nothing to do with what I said. Again you’re going off topic.
Like when he said the “ascendant” in Federalist 68 meant offspring when it really meant influence.
” the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
Mario says he must have been referring to American Common Law. He was wrong too.
You seem to be ignoring this statement by Justice Gray,
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.
Clearly Justice Gray thought Justice Minor meant the English Common Law.
@Doc [Congress has no power to naturalize anyone born in the United States]
You must be assuming the U.S. Constitution was no Action in the Creation of a new Nationality for that premise. (?)
Separating ACTS of Congress from the Constitution is of course reasonable, however separating the Constitution as an ACT of Congress defies the Constitutional Convention whereupon the actions of Congress were manifest as the Constitution.
This is the line of thinking when you state the 14th Amendment is not a Naturalization Act of Congress. In most ACTS the 2/3rds Majority is difficult, so an ACT of Congress so making an AMENDMENT deserves the greater reward as a very important ACT ; and yet you perceive it less?
The perception of the recognition of Congress that no [natural born Citizens] existing prior to the Adoption of the Constitution is given in the Office of the President’s qualification- or a Citizen at the Time of the Adoption of this Constituion.
Indeed, a new Nationality was created by Adoption of the Separate Several States Citizens in to a Union in an American Nation. Something never perceived before.
Indeed a conglomeration of other Nationalities, and a formula contrived of and for an unfractured American Nationality- Born in the U.S. to U.S. Citizen Parents.
In genetics it is the confirmation of a trait passed two generation that confirms a new species as dominate. That might not be a good example, however, it is one the Congress considered in 2000 U.S. House subcommittee hearings that are often forgotten as very modern consideration to changing the requirements from [ natural born Citizen] to [ Citizen] for the Office Of PRESIDENT.
Repeatedly, in those hearings was the consideration upon [two Generations] in the understanding of Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
If we are not to consider the failed attempts of changing the nbCtzn requirement, to Citzn, how can we possibly assume the wisdom of CONGRESS keeping it as is? This is why I used EVIDENTUARY HEARING TESTIMONY of such in my Pleadings. That helped me to understand the VALUE.
To simply pollute the purest form of AMERICAN NATIONALTY with a dilution of foreign nationality either from parent or jurisdiction is a dishonesty, or lie of attribution.
Its also a lie of progression. That the hybrid American seeds will bare the fruit of an American Tree in a Second Generation we could take pride in striving for in a matter of TIME.
Its not that easy , but it’s well worth it. America has and was created to protect something uniquely created as value. My God We celebrate 2nd Generation purity as American [natural born Citizens]. This is the Fruit of our Labor in the TIME it takes to be born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. That is as Doc says.. Uncontested.
Its really wonderful to ALL be in AGREEMENT to that isn’t it? I think it is.
I made the very FIRST 2016 for President Commercial. I’m proud of that. . and for the most part it is true. Establishment Republicans and Democrats have either not understood the Value or are intensionally diluting and polluting PURE AMERICAN NATIONALTY. We are a Nation of course of immigrants , but the intentions of American Sovereignty are clear.
I AM AMERICAN
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4otwMXGzvac
There is that old thorn-in-the-blanket coming up to prick you again.
1) Wong Kim Ark v. The United States proved EXACTLY that – anyone born in the US, w/o regard to parents nationality, IS a nbC
2) Your ‘argument’ is a thinly disguised attempt to disenfranchise those Natural Born Citizens whose parents happen to have no documentation.
Well, there were George Spencer Thenault and his sister Catherine Bathilde Thenault, but they were only physically in the United States. Legally, they were not, as they “were at that time children of a duly accredited diplomatic representative of a foreign state . . . Although these children in a geographical sense were born within the United States, by virtue of the status of their father at that time, they became subject to the jurisdiction of the French Republic as effectively as though they were born within its territorial limits and outside those of the United States. They thus may be said to have been “born outside of the United States” within the meaning of the statute,” In Re Thenault, 47 F. Supp. 952, 953 (D.D.C. 1942).
Now if their father, who by the way had been commander of the Lafayette Escadrille, had not been “a duly accredited diplomatic representative of a foreign state,” they would have been native-born US citizens and ineligible for naturalization. If they’d been born after May 24, 1934, they would’ve acquired US citizenship at birth because of their US citizen mother, applying the law as if they’d been born abroad.
This case is of course a notable exception to the general rule, which outside the birther community would just serve to illustrate its almost universal application.
I know you are confused about many things, including that your belief about what natural-born citizen means is not the one used in reality.
Around a dozen courts have expressly said that birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship, yet Judy is “confused” about these merit-based decisions.
Amending the U.S. Constitution isn’t an act of Congress, as it also requires action by the states. As explained in the U.S. Constitution.
Congressional hearings have no evidentiary value in court cases, and all of Judy’s cases were dismissed.
Judy’s xenophobic beliefs are not the law.
Being contested does not make anything insufficient; bithers have been “contesting” President Obama, and he still continues to enjoy the office to which he was twice duly elected.
Rambling on YouTube is not a commercial.
I was responding to Judy’s off-topic comments. Judy claims to like and respect our host, Doctor Conspiracy. Judy should try to show that respect and respect Doc’s simply request to remain on-topic.
For a candidate for President you have a poor understanding of the Constitution.
Congress can propose an amendment to the Constitution upon the vote of 2/3 of both houses, but the proposed amendment still has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Acts of Congress do not have to be ratified the states.
In addition, the Constitution can be amended through a Constitutional Convention, and from the plain wording of Article 5 it would appear that Congress has no real say in the matter. “The Congress…on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.”
I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge that Klayman’s RICO lawsuit against Clinton was dismissed and that there is no trial date. Why are you afraid to acknowledge it?
So you say that a child having a different nationality than their parent is “illogical.”
Perhaps you think that President Thomas Jefferson is illogical, as it was he that proposed the law adopted in Virginia which made all free persons born in the state citizens. This is 1779 act:
“That all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth, and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act; and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same, other than alien enemies, and shall before any court of record, give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation that they intend to reside therein; and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father if living, or otherwise whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father if living, or otherwise their mother, becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth,…
And this is the 1783 Act:
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth; all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act intituled “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth;” and also all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth,
Dualer: What is illogical is to assert that anyone born in the US, w/o regard to parents nationality, is a nbC (or even “citizen”– since it creates a situation where the children are US citizens and the parents are not– totally illogical, and kidnapping, but that argument is for another time) when the very purpose of the requirement is “prevention of foreign influence.”
Consider this from the Minor v. Happersett decision:
“From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.”
I’m surprised Mario didn’t mention that line from the holy and unanimous SCOTUS in Minor.
Dualer,
It doesn’t matter how good your logic is (and yours sucks, by the way) when your assumptions are false. The only stated “purpose” (it was, in fact, just a suggestion by Justice Jay) was to provide a “strong check” for the “admission” of “FOREIGNERS” into our government. The use of the term “foreign influence” (which is nearly ubiquitous amongst birthers in my experience) is quite simply either incompetence, dishonesty or stupidity.
Which describes you? I think you’re going for the trifecta.
Am I the only one reminded of General Jack D. Ripper?
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003297/quotes
I would contend that someone who is not a real candidate does not need a real understanding of the Constitution. So long as the candidacy and the understanding remain at the same level, it seems all right to me.
Very accurate comparison.
Nope.
Precious Bodily Fluids
I am a scientist who is working on developing new bioanalytical algorithms for doing next-generation DNA sequencing and I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone convey their fundamental incompetence in the field of genetics as quickly and thoroughly as you did with your completely inane statement.
There is nothing wrong with ignorance, Mr. Judy, but trying to pass ignorance off as knowledge is a dead giveaway of stupidity.
Since you probably don’t understand what I said, just know that it was a completely justified insult to your intelligence. Would you really want someone with your intellectual shortcomings to be president?
Minor v Happersett Binding precedent
https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/
You have chosen the wrong place to post a reference to this old, long-debunked argument, as the vast majority of contributors here are all too familiar with its history.
An example, from the dismissal of Allen v. Barack Obama et al, Arizona Pima County Super. Ct. C20121317:
“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution … and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark , 169 U.S. 649, 702-03(1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678,684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Emphasis added.
You cited an opinion by a New Jersey attorney-turned-poker player who is no longer licensed to practice law. That doesn’t exactly instill confidence in him, especially considering that his “binding precedent” interpretation of Minor v. Happersett has been rejected by every court which has considered it.
First, Minor is not binding precedent as to the definition of Natural Born Citizen, and second, you birthers don’t understand what it says. But have a happy New Year anyway.
_____
Spoken like someone who has no experience reading court opinions.
Yes, birthers frequently make the mistake of conflating a recitation of the facts with the conditions which are necessary for the court’s decision.
WKA was a citizen at birth because he was born in the United States while subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Those were the necessary conditions.