Ann Coulter knows the United States is no longer a nation of laws. It is ruled by elitists-- journalists, politicians and academics. It is depressing to think a nation of 300 million cannot find candidates who have no birth problems. Is it important to have something to hold over the head of elected officials so that they will obey the ruling elite? That may explain why so many politicians lack spines.
On the other had according to Ben Macintyre in his book, A Spy Among Friends: Kim Philby and the Great Betrayal, a memo uncovered in 1946 revealed that there were over 200 Soviet spies in the United States government. More in the British government. Kim Philby, a Soviet double agent was in charge of counter espionage for the MI6 and worked closely with James Angleton, the counter spy chief of the CIA. Many under cover agents for Britain and the United States lost their lives because of Philby. It is amazing that the allies won the second World War.
[From article]
If Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen,” eligible to be president, what was all the fuss about Obama being born in Kenya? No one disputed that Obama’s mother was a U.S. Citizen.
Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and an alien father. If he’s eligible to be president, then so was Obama — even if he’d been born in Kenya.
[. . .]
As with most constitutional arguments, whether or not Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution apparently comes down to whether you support Cruz for president. (Or, for liberals, whether you think U.S. citizenship is a worthless thing that ought to be extended to every person on the planet.)
Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural born citizen,” eligible to run for president, and “corrected” myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!
But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.”
[. . .]
The phrase “natural born” is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin — a Scot — could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.
The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman.
It was the king on whose soil he was born and to whom he owed his allegiance — not his Scottish blood — that determined his rights.
[. . .]
Not everyone born on the king’s soil would be “natural born.” Calvin’s Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be “natural” subjects, despite being “born upon his soil.”
[. . .]
Not everyone born on the king’s soil would be “natural born.” Calvin’s Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be “natural” subjects, despite being “born upon his soil.” [. . .]
That would make no sense if Cruz were a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: “Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” (There’s an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn’t that.)
So Cruz was born a citizen — under our naturalization laws — but is not a “natural born citizen” — under our Constitution.
[. . .]
Mostly, the Cruz partisans confuse being born a citizen with being a “natural born citizen.” This is constitutional illiteracy.
[. . .]
The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.
[. . .]
exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)”
[. . .]
Unless we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now, and interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean, Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.”
http://humanevents.com/2016/01/13/were-all-ruth-bader-ginsburg-now/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now
If Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen,” eligible to be president, what was all the fuss about Obama being born in Kenya? No one disputed that Obama’s mother was a U.S. Citizen.
Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and an alien father. If he’s eligible to be president, then so was Obama — even if he’d been born in Kenya.
[. . .]
As with most constitutional arguments, whether or not Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution apparently comes down to whether you support Cruz for president. (Or, for liberals, whether you think U.S. citizenship is a worthless thing that ought to be extended to every person on the planet.)
Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural born citizen,” eligible to run for president, and “corrected” myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!
But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.”
[. . .]
The phrase “natural born” is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin — a Scot — could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.
The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman.
It was the king on whose soil he was born and to whom he owed his allegiance — not his Scottish blood — that determined his rights.
[. . .]
Not everyone born on the king’s soil would be “natural born.” Calvin’s Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be “natural” subjects, despite being “born upon his soil.”
[. . .]
Not everyone born on the king’s soil would be “natural born.” Calvin’s Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be “natural” subjects, despite being “born upon his soil.” [. . .]
That would make no sense if Cruz were a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: “Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” (There’s an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn’t that.)
So Cruz was born a citizen — under our naturalization laws — but is not a “natural born citizen” — under our Constitution.
[. . .]
Mostly, the Cruz partisans confuse being born a citizen with being a “natural born citizen.” This is constitutional illiteracy.
[. . .]
The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.
[. . .]
exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)”
[. . .]
Unless we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now, and interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean, Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.”
http://humanevents.com/2016/01/13/were-all-ruth-bader-ginsburg-now/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
We’re All Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now
Wednesday Jan 13, 2016 5:38 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment