Ted Cruz, so whaddya think?

[Further]

Thanks barfo, then I go with the Harvard law review (Denny). I have a tough time interpreting MarAzul at times. Perhaps the courts could help me with that.

 

[Denny Crane]

The concept of natural born citizen and numerous of our other laws are based on English common law that predates the constitution by centuries.

Except in Louisiana, where their laws are based upon French common law.

So we can both be right. And barfo can be wrong

 

[barfo]

The concept of natural born citizen and numerous of our other laws are based on English common law that predates the constitution by centuries.

Except in Louisiana, where their laws are based upon French common law.

So we can both be right. And barfo can be wrong

I can be. But I never am.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Perhaps the courts could help me with that.

Ha! Dang! I can't think of anything I said that is all that difficult to understand. I even extracted the information from the book for you.

 

[barfo]

Ha! Dang! I can't think of anything I said that is all that difficult to understand. I even extracted the information from the book for you.

Yeah, it's great, if we were living in the 1780's. We aren't. Or at least, most of us aren't.

Essentially every court decision since then disagrees with your view of natural born citizen (amusingly, the single one that agrees with you is Dred Scott).

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Essentially every court decision since then disagrees

Really? Please give us a link to one decision. I can't not think of one time the question of Natural Born has been before the court.
I look forward to being brought up to date. I do recall Congress ruling on John McCain being Natural Born, but never the court on anyone.

 

[barfo]

Really? Please give us a link to one decision. I can't not think of one time the question of Natural Born has been before the court.
I look forward to being brought up to date. I do recall Congress ruling on John McCain being Natural Born, but never the court on anyone.

Here you go. Read the section that begins on page 44 entitled "Assertion of Two Citizen-Parent Requirement".

The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars,
and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing a
foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a
“natural born Citizen” eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution,
regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents. The legal issues regarding “natural
born” citizenship and birth within the United States, without regard to lineage or ancestral
bloodline, have been well settled in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date
back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation.

 

[MARIS61]

More importantly, a requirement to be "natural born" most likely would exclude all Americans born by Cesarean section procedure.

I seriously doubt we are in danger of Ted Cruz ever becoming President of the United States, regardless of his birthplace.

 

[MARIS61]

Well, there isn't really much point in debating if Santa Claus exists, even if some people are foolish enough to doubt it.

fify.

 

[MarAzul]

page 44 entitled

Page 44 of what?

Oh, I see. Page 44 hardly refers to a ruling by the court on anything to do with Natural Born.
Yes it refers to cases ruling on Citizenship which you seem to think is the same.

Well consider this, the Constitution calls for a Natural Born Citizen not a Citizen and the Court has once ruled that there are no superfluous word in the Constitution. So trying to make Citizen and Natural Born Citizen the same thing will hardly work.

The paper you referenced is by an attorney, it is not a court decision.

I love this line, "unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars".
He must mean all except the Harvard Law review Denny posted.

 

[barfo]

Page 44 of what?

Of the link I provided. Click on the words 'here you go'.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Page 44 of what?

Oh, I see. Page 44 hardly refers to a ruling by the court on anything to do with Natural Born.

Yeah, I said start reading on page 44. You might have to read more than one page.

Yes it refers to cases ruling on Citizenship which you seem to think is the same.

Well consider this, the Constitution calls for a Natural Born Citizen not a Citizen and the Court has once ruled that there are no superfluous word in the Constitution. So trying to make Citizen and Natural Born Citizen the same thing will hardly work.

The paper is pretty clear that it is talking about the definition of natural born citizen.

The paper you referenced is by an attorney, it is not a court decision.

Yes, I'm aware of who wrote the paper. The important part is not who wrote it but the court decisions it cited.

Although, of course, the author has one more law degree than you do.

Perhaps you'd be more interested in the opinions of the esteemed legal scholar here.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I can be. But I always am wrong.

barfo

FIFY

 

[MarAzul]

one more law degree than you do

Ha! That will win every time. Man, that is lefty attempt to intimidate. Where do you guys learn this small shit?

Tell you what you do, instead of finding sources to support a meaning that you want, Try finding the source of the usage in the
Constitution. I can tell you prefer to belittle the Constitution, but try it. Given the context of the day, you can be pretty sure
they were not going to let another Englishman get his foot in the door, himself or an offspring that he contrived to have born here.
They slammed that door shut, except for themselves. Another clue is in the Smithsonian (I think this is were I saw it) among the collection of James Madison things.
His copy of the Law of Nations, with his notes penned in the margins of the pages. His reference book is my take.

You can refer all you wish to this or that subsequent to the creation of the Constitution such as the 14th amendment and cases leading to that amendment, but
even you must realize that has nothing to do with the requirement written into the Constitution for the holder of the office of President.

You may not like it, but it is there. An amendment can remove it, wishing it away probably won't do.

 

[barfo]

Ha! That will win every time. Man, that is lefty attempt to intimidate. Where do you guys learn this small shit?

It's not intimidation. It's just fact, and a relevant fact. Every lawyer has one more law degree than you. Or I.
You are opining on the law; it makes sense to point out that people trained to do that pretty much all disagree with you.
That doesn't make you wrong, of course. But it is a cautionary note for those that might be tempted to believe you.

Tell you what you do, instead of finding sources to support a meaning that you want, Try finding the source of the usage in the
Constitution. I can tell you prefer to belittle the Constitution, but try it. Given the context of the day, you can be pretty sure
they were not going to let another Englishman get his foot in the door, himself or an offspring that he contrived to have born here.
They slammed that door shut, except for themselves. Another clue is in the Smithsonian (I think this is were I saw it) among the collection of James Madison things.
His copy of the Law of Nations, with his notes penned in the margins of the pages. His reference book is my take.

You can refer all you wish to this or that subsequent to the creation of the Constitution such as the 14th amendment and cases leading to that amendment, but
even you must realize that has nothing to do with the requirement written into the Constitution for the holder of the office of President.

Yes, if you ignore everything that has happened since the constitution was written, you might have a case. And some slaves, and a wife who can't vote.

You may not like it, but it is there. An amendment can remove it, wishing it away probably won't do.

Trouble is, no one agrees with your interpretation except crackpots and birthers.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

except crackpots and birthers

You do sound like a man that can not find any other source other than the one I point out to you.
Damn that hurts, hey?

Oh, It seems the Harvard Law review agrees, you do remember this part,
"That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . ."

Your lesson is complete.

 

[barfo]

You do sound like a man that can not find any other source other than the one I point out to you.
Damn that hurts, hey?

Oh, It seems the Harvard Law review agrees, you do remember this part,
"That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . ."

Your lesson is complete.

Ok, so you like the Harvard Law Review article, do you?

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.

Do you think that Obama needed to go through naturalization proceedings in order to become a citizen?
If so, reality disagrees with you.
If not, then the Harvard Law Review article says that he's a natural born citizen.

As for sources, I provided you a rather lengthy analysis of the subject. I can't help the fact that you only read one page of it.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

I provided you

You have provided nothing prior to the Constitution that could possibly be the source of the term.
You keep trying to equate Natural Born as the same as Citizen. You ought to know better, that would make the term in the Constitution superfluous. Nothing in the Constitution is superfluous.
You don't really believe the framer would leave it so and English citizen (British Citizen)could come here and produce a child eligible to be President, do you? If so, you should study some more American history.
Look at the wording in the Constitution they chose. Why hey? To slam the door on that shit. The 14th amendment did indeed make it so that any kid dropped here becomes a citizen,
rather a dumb idea, but it happen. However, it did not touch upon (change) the meaning of Natural born. Find every lawyer you want that disagrees, it means nothing unless a court issues an opinion, and I sure don't see the court ruling the term Natural Born Citizen is the same as Citizen dropped in the US by any pass through.

Since you like lawyer opinions, here is a pub by some pointing out cases where judges loath to find words superfluous. There are many more. I can't see Natural Born becoming meaningless
no matter how many liberals would approve.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=_GMgCw-Qy0UWaZwYPtDO0A&bvm=bv.89381419,d.cGU

 

[barfo]

You have provided nothing prior to the Constitution that could possibly be the source of the term.

Nor have I attempted to, since it would be irrelevant, unless you've invented a time machine to take us back to the 1700s.

You keep trying to equate Natural Born as the same as Citizen.

No, I haven't done that, not even once.

You ought to know better, that would make the term in the Constitution superfluous. Nothing in the Constitution is superfluous.
You don't really believe the framer would leave it so and English citizen (British Citizen)could come here and produce a child eligible to be President, do you? If so, you should study some more American history.

I have no doubt you are correct insofar as what the framers thought. I just don't find it all that compelling. No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise, the constitution is subject to interpretation and change, with and without amendments.

Look at the wording in the Constitution they chose. Why hey? To slam the door on that shit. The 14th amendment did indeed make it so that any kid dropped here becomes a citizen,
rather a dumb idea, but it happen. However, it did not touch upon (change) the meaning of Natural born. Find every lawyer you want that disagrees, it means nothing unless a court issues an opinion

Uhm... courts have issued opinions. That was in the link I sent you that you have ignored (along with the rest of the last 200+ years of history).

, and I sure don't see the court ruling the term Natural Born Citizen is the same as Citizen dropped in the US by any pass through.

Because you have your hands over your ears and are shouting "LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

How would you like to buy stock in a company and have the company decide your stock is no longer valid?

The "framers" of the company intended you to be able to own a % of the company and have voting rights for your share of stock.

Because the corporation's bylaws (constitution) are codified at the beginning (perhaps 100+ years ago in the case of AT&T or Sears or other very old companies), they have to live by those rules.

Barfo and his time machine fallacy.

LOL

 

[barfo]

Barfo and his time machine fallacy.

LOL

As you no doubt know, corporate bylaws can be amended or replaced altogether. In addition they can be nullified in part by changes in laws and regulations.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

As you no doubt know, corporate bylaws can be amended or replaced altogether. In addition they can be nullified in part by changes in laws and regulations.

barfo

But not by the president by fiat because he thinks the by laws are antiquated. Surely the shareholders don't.

 

[barfo]

But not by the president by fiat because he thinks the by laws are antiquated. Surely the shareholders don't.

Nobody is talking here about changing anything by fiat. Unless, of course, we are talking about the bylaws of the Chrysler Corporation.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

I have no doubt you are correct

That will do, thank you.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nobody is talking here about changing anything by fiat. Unless, of course, we are talking about the bylaws of the Chrysler Corporation.

barfo

You have made it clear the constitution means no more to you than those bylaws.

 

[barfo]

That will do, thank you.

You've won the battle that I wasn't contesting (framer's intent) and lost the war (reality). Congratulations!

barfo

 

[barfo]

You have made it clear the constitution means no more to you than those bylaws.

Yep. I don't worship old documents, be they the bible or the constitution or corporate bylaws. Historically interesting, yes, definitely. Rules according to which modern man must live life, without question or alteration? Sorry, no.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

well, at this point I'd write-in Barfo over Hillary, so....

 

[barfo]

well, at this point I'd write-in Barfo over Hillary, so....

Awesome! I'm on my way! Rocketship to Washington! Who else wants me?

barfo

 

[barfo]

I've just set up barfo2016.com.
You can make your campaign donations online there.

barfo