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

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

Well, my answer would be...they were here, near the beginning. They should be classified naturally born, using just logic.

originally posted by: reldra

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.

I don't believe they are eligible, but I refuse to advocate revolution. That would be reckless of me.

originally posted by: reldra
Well, my answer would be...they were here, near the beginning. They should be classified naturally born, using just logic.

I do not have any definitive data but I think the grandfather clause applied to all white males living here that did not remain loyal to the British.

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

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.

I don't believe they are eligible, but I refuse to advocate revolution. That would be reckless of me.

Not just reckless, but I don't think what the founding fathers intended be done in these cases. Unless some guy, gets on a plane from say, Italy, today. Isn't a citizen, has no parents that are citizens and then he starts a campaign for the presidency and no one steps in to stop him. Some sort of uprising should then occur.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

It could be that he was not eligible to begin with.

I am not familiar with the details but will certainly educate myself when I have a chance.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

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.

I don't believe they are eligible, but I refuse to advocate revolution. That would be reckless of me.

Not just reckless, but I don't think what the founding fathers intended be done in these cases. Unless some guy, gets on a plane from say, Italy, today. Isn't a citizen, has no parents that are citizens and then he starts a campaign for the presidency and no one steps in to stop him. Some sort of uprising should then occur.

Natural law is universal. 'Birthers' had a right to be considered seriously. There was nothing close to a universal consensus on Obama's 'natural born' citizenship.

It's scary how the media ridiculed them into oblivion thanks, in large part, to who I believe were provocateurs: Corsi and Taitz.

But back to the OP...again...all of these people are natural born citizens in the general definition. No reason to pick it apart. The point of 'naturally born citizen' was to have no conflict of loyalty to another nation. These guys are Americans.

If we are looking at intent of 'natural', that was the purpose.


In fact, I would say, that at times, all 3 are TOO American, lol.

a reply to: AnonnieMuss

This site is interesting and lists all Presidents who were born prior to the Constitution being ratified. They were all, however, born in the Colonies and were subject to the grandfather clause. Buchanan's father was born elsewhere but became a naturalized citizen prior to his son's birth.

a reply to: reldra

There is reason to pick it apart. Natural law can be nebulous. It warrants universal discussion.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: AnonnieMuss

This site is interesting and lists all Presidents who were born prior to the Constitution being ratified. They were all, however, born in the Colonies and were subject to the grandfather clause. Buchanan's father was born elsewhere but became a naturalized citizen prior to his son's birth.

Wonderful. Thank you!

a reply to: AnonnieMuss

Just ignore the Obama birther stuff at the bottom. The other details are all historically accurate from what I can tell.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: AnonnieMuss

This site is interesting and lists all Presidents who were born prior to the Constitution being ratified. They were all, however, born in the Colonies and were subject to the grandfather clause. Buchanan's father was born elsewhere but became a naturalized citizen prior to his son's birth.

Some AFTER the constitution being ratified had 1 parent who were NOT US citizens.

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
a reply to: reldra

There is reason to pick it apart. Natural law can be nebulous. It warrants universal discussion.

You can discuss it, but in regard to those noted in the OP, nothing will happen, discussion or not.

originally posted by: reldra
Some AFTER the constitution being ratified had 1 parent who were NOT US citizens.

Which ones? I only see Chester Arthur falling under that criteria from what the person on that site is posting.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: reldra
Some AFTER the constitution being ratified had 1 parent who were NOT US citizens.

Which ones? I only see Chester Arthur falling under that criteria from what the person on that site is posting.

Barack Obama!

I know there was another with a mother born in France with French citizenship, I just can;t find it now.

originally posted by: reldra
I know there was another with a mother born in France with French citizenship, I just can;t find it now.

I am fairly certain that foreign women marrying men who were citizens automatically received the franchise at that time.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: reldra
I know there was another with a mother born in France with French citizenship, I just can;t find it now.

I am fairly certain that foreign women marrying men who were citizens automatically received the franchise at that time.

I'm not sure, can't find it. But I am confused how some people still, today, point out that both parents must be US citizens.

This 'natural born; clause derives from England, which is as follows:

source for below : source

"Rationale[edit]
The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.[1]

St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in his 1803 edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, that the natural born citizen clause is "a happy means of security against foreign influence" and that "[t]he admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."[8] In Vol. II, Chapter 10, Blackstone writes, "The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."[9] St. George Tucker, the editor, says in a footnote, naturalized citizens have the same rights as the natural-born except "they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.",[10]

Before Blackstone, the leading authority for the meaning of constitutional language, Edward Coke, explained in Calvin's Case[11] that a child born on the soil of England to a foreign national visiting the country who is not an invader or foreign diplomat is a "natural born subject" of England:

[A foreign national]... so long as he was within the King's protection; which [though] but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a [natural bond] he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject;"

So, here, we see the, probably, first argument as to natural born and what they can do or not do.
However, it shows that 'natural born' has to do with guarding against loyalty to another nation. back to the OP....I don't think any of the candidates mentioned would have loyalty to another nation.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: reldra
I know there was another with a mother born in France with French citizenship, I just can;t find it now.

I am fairly certain that foreign women marrying men who were citizens automatically received the franchise at that time.

I'm not sure, can't find it. But I am confused how some people still, today, point out that both parents must be US citizens.

This 'natural born; clause derives from England, which is as follows:

source for below : source

"Rationale[edit]
The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.[1]

If the term is meant to protect the nation from foreign influence, how can someone born in Hawaii -- which was illegally annexed and in violation of an international treaty -- be considered eligible unless you believe America is the owner of the world? There are Hawaiian royals that, to this day, completely decry what was done to their nation and monarchy.

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: reldra
I know there was another with a mother born in France with French citizenship, I just can;t find it now.

I am fairly certain that foreign women marrying men who were citizens automatically received the franchise at that time.

I'm not sure, can't find it. But I am confused how some people still, today, point out that both parents must be US citizens.

This 'natural born; clause derives from England, which is as follows:

source for below : source

"Rationale[edit]
The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.[1]

If the term is meant to protect the nation from foreign influence, how can someone born in Hawaii -- which was illegally annexed and in violation of an international treaty -- be considered eligible unless you believe America is the owner of the world? There are Hawaiian royals that, to this day, completely decry what was done to their nation and monarchy.

A few there may 'decry' it. However, it is a US state. Barack Obama, as far as I know, has no ties to any 'kingdom' organizations there. There are a lot of places in the world where past monarchies were overthrown or replaced by governments.

Born in the state of Hawaii to an American citizen.


John McCain..some say he was born in a Panama hospital, not the military base he says. We don't own Panama. However, I am certain the man is an American citizen.



That is the crux of the thing, the person running for President can;t have loyalty to another nation. I doubt Barack Obama has loyalty to the remains of the Hawaiian monarchy.

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
'Birthers' had a right to be considered seriously. There was nothing close to a universal consensus on Obama's 'natural born' citizenship.

After birthers losing every single court case they tried, over 200 of them, why should they be taken seriously when obviously they have nothing?

www.scribd.com...

It's scary how the media ridiculed them into oblivion

They did that themselves by losing every single court case.