Donate

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Carmon Elliott Files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Ted Cruz Not Being a Natural Born Citizen



Carmon Elliott Files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Ted Cruz Not Being a Natural Born Citizen
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 9, 2016

Image result for image us supreme court
On June 28, 2016, I filed on behalf of Pennsylvania resident Carmon Elliott a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Petition can be accessed at https://www.scribd.com/document/317863645/Petition-for-a-Writ-of-Certiorari-Elliott-v-Cruz-Filed-6-28-16 .  The Court docketed the Petition on June 30, 2016.  Ted Cruz’s response to the petition is due by August 1, 2016.  The U.S. Supreme Court docket can be read at http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-13.htm .   
The parties stipulated in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania that Cruz was born on December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada; that his mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born on November 23, 1934, in the State of Delaware; that his mother is and has always been a U.S. citizen from the moment of her birth; that at the time of Cruz’s birth, his mother had been physically present in the United States for more than ten years, including at least five years after she reached the age of fourteen; and that Cruz was a citizen at birth.  
Elliott filed a petition with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State to set aside the nomination petition of Ted Cruz pursuant to which he sought to appear on the April 26, 2016 primary election ballot for the Office of the President.  In his objection, petitioner alleged that given that Cruz was born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, his name should be stricken from the Pennsylvania 2016 primary ballot because he is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.   
Cruz filed his opposition, contending that Elliott’s objection raised a non-justiciable political question.  As to the merits, Cruz contended that a person born to at least one U.S. citizen parent, regardless of where the child may be born, if a citizen at birth under any law, is an Article II natural born citizen through inheritance of citizenship from the parent (jus sanguinis) and without needing to be born in the United States (jus soli).     
The lower court ruled that the political question doctrine did not apply and then went on to decide the merits of Elliott’s objection.  After discussing some articles written by some authorities, the court held that: “Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a ‘natural born citizen’ includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.  Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States, and the objection filed by Carmen Elliott to the Nomination Petition of Ted Cruz is denied.”         
Elliott appealed the Order of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which affirmed that Order on March 31, 2016, and also denied Victor William’s Notice to Intervene as Appellant and Elliott’s application for oral argument. 
In our Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, we argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided an important question of constitutional law concerning the definition of an article II natural born citizen that has not been but should be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Having a person sit as President and Commander in Chief of the Military who is not a natural born citizen puts the national security of the United States vitally at risk.  Whether or not the President and Commander in Chief is legitimately sitting in those offices impacts the nation’s foreign policy.  The nation needs a definition of “natural born citizen” for future presidential and vice presidential elections.  Congress, the executive, the political parties, and the voters cannot define a natural born citizen.  Only the judiciary can define a natural born citizen.    
We argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided an important constitutional question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Under those precedents, Cruz is at best a naturalized citizen of the United States “at birth,” but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress, not an Article II natural born citizen under the common law to which the Framers looked to define the clause when they drafted and adopted the Constitution.   
We also argue that U.S. Supreme Court review is warranted because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and it Secretary of State, by allowing an ineligible presidential candidate to place his name on the presidential primary election ballot, has violated Elliott’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right and privilege to life, liberty, and property and equal protection of the law which is implicated if Elliott is forced to live under a president who is not an Article II natural born citizen. 
Finally, we maintain that the important constitutional issue raised by Elliott’s ballot challenge has not been mooted by Cruz voluntarily suspending his presidential campaign because there is nothing stopping Cruz from again running for President or Vice-President and the issue of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen is capable of repetition yet evading review.  
We urge Americans who are committed to having our politicians and government respect our Constitution and the rule of law to support our cause.  Express yourselves not only privately, but also in public.  Write letters and leave comments in print and electronic media.  Call into radio shows and tell the hosts what you think.  Mr. Elliott is also conducting a fund raising campaign to raise funds to meet our printing and filing expenses.  We will appreciate your contribution which you can make at https://www.gofundme.com/h3xff4m4   .  
I will be posting updates as the Petition makes its way to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 9, 2016
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
Copyright © 2016
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved  


UPDATE as of July 29, 2016:
On July 14, 2016, Ted Cruz filed a waiver of his right to respond to the Petition.  The Clerk has distributed the case for the U.S. Supreme Court conference of September 26, 2016.  Here is how the docket appears: 

No. 16-13           
Title:     
Carmon Elliott, Petitioner
v.
Ted Cruz
Docketed:           June 30, 2016
Lower Ct:            Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
  Case Nos.:         (29 MAP 2016)
  Decision Date:  March 31, 2016
~~~Date~~~        ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 28 2016         Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2016)
Jul 14 2016          Waiver of right of respondent Ted Cruz to respond filed.
Jul 27 2016          DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.

UPDATE as of October 3, 2016:

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.  See ORDER LIST: 580 U.S., published on Monday, October 3, 2016, accessed at https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100316zor_9ol1.pdf ,  The Court did not give any reason for the denial which it normally does not give.  The denial of such a petition is not a ruling on the merits.  We will just have to wait until another day.  





216 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 216 of 216   Newer›   Newest»
ajtelles said...

1/

Shallow & "unintentional"

Mario,

I, being a "crank nonsense" spotter, noticed instantly that Bryan came through again with "crank nonsense" on July 7, 2017 at 3:40 AM, and his comment indicates that he is not a very deep thinker at 3:40 in the morning - with or without a drink or two or three or...more.

First, I noticed that he asked a debate question and then finished the paragraph with a shallow thinker insult and then says that to debate me would "show undeserved respect" because my "position" is "unworthy of serious consideration".

Ha!

Bryan wrote:
>>" Ajtelles, in your comments here you hold -- and please challenge me if you think I'm wrong on this -- that to be eligible under Article II, one's parents had to have been married. ...."

Bryan, are you serious?

Bryan, do you really believe that the constitution delegates and states' ratifiers were implicitly promoting the myth and theory that ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship would quality a person to be president without the parents being married only to each other before the child is born?

Really?

Bryan, are you a Muslim or simply a Muslim supporter (supporting is not a bad thing, but the intent could be detrimental to U.S. internal security if it supports jihad and imposition of sharia jurisprudence as superior to the U.S. Constitution) and, whether you a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or an animist or a Buddhist or an atheist, do you believe that Muhammad’s multiple marriages, including his marriage to 6 year old Aisha (which was consummated when she was 9 years old) are an example of a good role model for persons in the United States who may aspire to be president if they ALSO have multiple wives OR ALSO marry a 9 year old child? Since you don’t really care for the rule of law, forget for now that consummating marriage with a 9 year old is not lawful in 2017 America just as it was unlawful in 1787 America when Jay underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen”.

Bryan, do you really believe that in 1787 America the Founders and Framers of the Constitution were promoting the myth, the “crank nonsense” theory, that ANY person could be president of the United States simply because they were born on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction to only one or zero U.S. citizen parents?

Really?

Bryan, do you really believe that in 1787 America the social custom of that era would tolerate a child to be eligible to be president if the child was born on U.S. soil to a foreign female who had a child out of wedlock (emphasis is on "lock" by marriage) to a foreign male?

Really?

Bryan, do you really believe that when John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington that Jay implied and Washington agreed that ANY child born on U.S. soil could be eligible to be president even if born to a U.S. citizen female prostitute who was not married to anybody?

Really?

Bryan, do you really believe your "crank nonsense" drivel implicit in your question to me: "...that to be eligible under Article II, one's parents had to have been married"?

Bryan, are you serious?

ajtelles said...

Shallow & "unintentional"

2/

Bryan, do you really believe the implicit "crank nonsense" that to be eligible under Article II one's parents did NOT have to be married?

Really?

Bryan, it is your own shallow thinker "position" that is truly "unworthy of serious consideration" but it is definitely worthy of derision because of it's shallowness and thoughtlessness and the opportunity it presents to point out “crank nonsense” as soon as it is posted here on Mario’s Natural Born Citizen blog.

Bryan, that's not mean, but it is responsive.

Bryan, you have revealed – again – that you are simply argumentative without substance?

And Bryan, dittos back at you with your own words:

>>" My position is that your position is so obviously garbage, so clearly unworthy of serious consideration, that to debate would show undeserved respect. Your theory deserves naught but mockery and derision."

Bryan, your position is definitely not worthy of serious consideration, but, you come back, ok, cuz' you are fodder* for "crank nonsense" spotters and your shallowness is just so easy to refute that it is fun to respond and in that way educate others who may happen to read what you write and how you are substantively rebutted and refuted as you try spitting against the wind in your defense of the "crank nonsense" myth and theory of ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualified a person to be president.

* Check the dictionary: the second definition in my American Heritage Dictionary for “fodder” is “Raw material, as for artistic creation.” You’re the fodder Bryan, I’m the artistic creator as is Mario.

AND Bryan, are you aware that you NEVER refer to John Jay to support your "crank nonsense" position that ONLY U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president was NOT Jay's ONLY implicit reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" but that ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president.

AND Bryan, are you aware that you NEVER refer to John Jay as a person who would agree with your "crank nonsense" that it does not matter whether or not the couple who reproduced a child should be married for their child to be eligible to be president?

Really? ALSO dual and ALSO not married?

So Bryan, tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock…, still waiting for you to adduce the historical record of the debate by the convention delegates and states’s ratifiers.

My common sense position is that since they did NOT debate ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualified a person to be president, the delegates and ratifiers did NOT debate and simply accepted John Jay’s implicit reason for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” because the obvious does NOT need to be debated.

Jay implied the obvious:

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY by birth alone
ONLY on U.S. soil / jurisdiction
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married
ONLY to each other
ONLY before the child is born

Bryan, see how easy it is to state the obvious?

Now, you try to stat the “obvious” as you see it, and keep your intentional mean attitude to yourself – especially after 3 am, unless that’s when you do your deepest thinkin’ and writin’.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Carlyle said...

POUND POUND
SQUARE SQUARE
ROUND ROUND
SIGH SIGH

ajtelles said...

Dittos Carlyle and Mario - sigh...

However, and, as Churchill might say:

NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
QUIT!!!!!

REPEAT...

NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
QUIT!!!!!

The truth has no agenda other than to be, to be repeated, to be protected, and to be promoted in full sentences with articulation until the thought leaders in America like Mark Levin, Esq., Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Prof. Solum, and Prof. Rob Natelson know enough to admit the "obvious".

What is the obvious?

The U.S. Constitution is under attack by myth makers, neo-birthers with subtle theories such as the “implicit constitution” of Yale Law Prof. Akhil Reed Amar who do not know or who do know but do not care that the "obvious" truth is that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president and that ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship was NOT in 1787 America and is still NOT in 2017 America the "obvious" reason for John Jay underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" on July 25, 1787 in his note to his friend George Washington.

The truth is on the side of the obvious about what the original genesis original intent implication of John Jay was in 1787 when he underlined the word "born".

John Jay, when he underlined the word "born", implied ONLY ONE obvious "original genesis" and ONLY ONE "original intent" about who is eligible to have command of the U.S. military and to be president of the United States.

To be eligible to be president John Jay's ONLY implication is obvious - ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and definitely NOT ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship:

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY "by birth alone"
ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married
ONLY to each other
ONLY before the child is born

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...still waiting for Bryan (not Linda) to get in touch with the obvious.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Carlyle said...

Are we REALLY supposed to believe THIS:

If prior to the necessity of The Obama Situation forcing us to accept a ridiculous and perverse definition of NBC, we had openly and objectively discussed the definition of NBC?

A severely anti-American foreigner and agitator happens to visit USA and his wife plops out an anchor baby. The baby is taken back to hostile foreign country and indoctrinated for many years. Child/adult moves to USA and takes up residence. Upon living here 14 years and achieving age of 35 he can become president.

Now, tell me with a straight face that Founding Fathers would have thought this was just great.

SIGH

ajtelles said...

Dittos "a straight face"

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...where's Bryan (not Linda)?

I'm still waiting for Bryan (not Linda) to get in touch with the obvious implication of John Jay's reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.

Jay would NOT have agreed with "a severely anti-American foreigner and agitator", or even a "friendly" foreigner, being eligible to be president when it is obvious that Jay's ONLY reason for underlining the word "born" is that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualified a person in 1787 to be president with the implication that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was to be a perpetual implication from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.

It is NOT possible for Jay to have had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the ONLY reason for underlining the word "born" and to have ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship as an implication for underlining the word "born". The myth, the neo-birther theory, the “implicit constitution” suggestion that Jay implied and Washington agreed that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to have command of the U.S. military and to be president, is, well, that theory is just nuts.

In the court of public opinion, this simple and obvious implication of John Jay, the underliner of the word "born" and the author of "natural born Citizen" in his note to Washington as implying that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to have command of the U.S. military and to be president, MUST be repeated and repeated and repeated. It MUST be repeated for two reasons: first, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president is very simple to state and to understand and to repeat to others, and second, Jay's original "implication" is NOT debatable, it is NOT refutable, it is NOT rebutable, it is NOT inclusive.

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is exclusive.
ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship is inclusive.

It is obvious that Jay was promoting the idea that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president and so it is obvious that Jay definitely was NOT promoting the idea that a person was eligible to be president just because a person was born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction to only 1 OR 0 U.S. citizen parents (see SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark error about the Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” language) OR born on foreign soil to either 1 OR 2 U.S. citizen parents (see the 1795 Naturalization Act).

Concerning who is eligible to have command of the U.S. military and to be president of the United States, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is exclusive for a security reason. The myth that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to command the military and to be president MUST be exposed as the “inclusive” fraud that it is and it must NOT be allowed to gain traction in the discussion that Yale Law Prof. Akhil Amar is promoting with his “implicit constitution” theory.

In conclusion, and to repeat the obvious as I posted above:

To be eligible to be president John Jay's ONLY implication is obvious - ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and definitely NOT ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship:

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY "by birth alone"
ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married
ONLY to each other
ONLY before the child is born

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...still waiting for Bryan (not Linda) and other myth makers and neo-birthers to get in touch with the obvious reality about Jay’s security concerns.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"Maybe next time you will be able to write something of substance here which demonstrates that I am wrong rather..."

Maybe re-read my first comment under this article. We both know what you did.

ajtelles said...

Maybe...

Mario,

Ir seems that Bryan (Unknown) is too shallow in intellect to respond to my tick... tock...tick... tock... tick... tock... comments on July 14, 2017 at 9:02 PM or July 10, 2017 at 12:24 AM or July 7, 2017 at 5:55 PM or, well, earlier, so he challenges you on a silly subject.

Oh well, Bryan has revealed himself as inconsequential, intellectually shallow and intellectually irrelevant, so, what to do?

Well, I guess, just be kind to and ask Bryan for a credible intellect who can refute and rebut John Jay's original genesis original intent reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington.

What did Jay mean when he underlined the word "born"?

To be eligible to be president, what was John Jay's ONLY obvious implication?

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president?
OR
ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president?

It's ONLY one OR the other - John Jay definitely did NOT imply both.

Bryan and et al., including Yale Law Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Mark Levin, Esq., Prof. Larry Solum, and Prof. Rob. Natelson - What did Jay "imply" in 1787 if NOT

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
_ONLY "by birth alone"
_ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
_ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
_ONLY married
_ONLY to each other
_ONLY before the child is born

Tick...tock... myth makers and neo-birthers - get in touch with the obvious reality about Jay’s security concerns - please.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown (Bryan),

Whatever Mr. Elliott may have argued prior to my representing him does not nor can it change the simple fact that you have agreed with me when you said on numerous occasions:

“My position is, and has been for some years, that the Article II natural born citizens are the proper subset of United States citizens that gained their citizenship upon birth." Bryan Gene Olson, February 10, 2014 at 11:33 PM.

ajtelles said...

Clarification...

Mario,

In your response to Bryan on July 16, 2017 at 7:20 AM, to whom is Bryan (not Linda / Unknown) referring?

Those who "...gained their citizenship upon birth..." is referring to whom?

To "...the Article II natural born citizens..."?
or
To "...United States citizens"?

Since it is Bryan, the inarticulate promoter of the myth, the 2000s shallow thinker theory, that ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president, my natural assumption is that those who "...gained their citizenship upon birth..." is a reference to the children and not to the parents.

Is that correct?

If so, Bryan's confusing sentence structure should be rewritten this way:

>> "...the Article II natural born citizens that gained their citizenship upon birth are the proper subset of United States citizens."

Is that correct?

Thanks.

PS.

Bryan and et al., including Yale Law Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Mark Levin, Esq., Prof. Larry Solum, and Prof. Rob. Natelson - what did Jay "imply" in 1787 if NOT

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
_ONLY "by birth alone"
_ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
_ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
_ONLY married
_ONLY to each other
_ONLY before the child is born

Tick...tock... myth makers, neo-birthers, and "implicit constitution" constitutional "scholars" - please get in touch with the obvious "natural law" reality about Jay’s security concerns - please.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

1/

Natural Born Citizen "Gender Essentialism" vs. Transgender Citizen

Mario,

Prof. Lawrence Solum posted an interesting abstract by Melina Bell on his Legal Theory Blog on July 3, 2017:

>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2017/07/melina-constantine-bell-washington-and-lee-university-has-postedgender-essentialism-and-american-law-why-and-how-to-sever.html

An Article V amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be the only way to stop the future of who determines who?/what? is a U.S. citizen. If the "gender system" (the last two words of the last sentence of the abstract) is altered, who will be a "natural born Citizen" and who will be eligible to be president? Will your "Natural Born Citizen" blog be necessary in a "gender system" in which "gender essentialism" is history?

"Bell on Gender Essentialism

"Melina Constantine Bell (Washington and Lee University) has posted Gender Essentialism and American Law: Why and How to Sever the Connection (Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, Vol. 23, 2016) on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

"American law presumes that all persons are born either female or male, and rests a surprising number of legal entitlements on this presumption. Persons’ legal rights to express their identity at work, to use public accommodations, and to retain legal parenthood status with respect to their children may all depend on whether they are female or male. Yet we, as individuals, generally have no choice regarding whether we are legally designated female or male, just as people had no choice as to whether they were designated “colored” or “white” under past racial discrimination schemes.

"The American legal system plays a significant role in the construction, maintenance, and coercive enforcement of the binary gender system that requires people to conform their identities in distorting ways to be included politically. By sustaining the gender system, legal institutions unnecessarily undermine human well-being, and unjustly and disrespectfully constrain individual liberty.

"The United States and state governments should re-examine laws that use sex or gender as a category by adapting the Law Commission of Canada’s methodology in Beyond Conjugality. In this fashion, American law can begin to move gradually away from the creation, maintenance, and enforcement of the gender system."

ajtelles said...

2/

Natural Born Citizen "Gender Essentialism" vs. Transgender Citizen

This is the url for the SSRN article by Melina Bell:
Gender Essentialism and American Law: Why and How to Sever the Connection

>> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2994349

Why is "gender essentiallism" an important issue to discuss in the context of who is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be president?

Well, consider this quote by a "trans veteran who served six tours in the Middle East": "My gender was female, but at birth, my sex was male".

This is the url for the July 30, 2017 article on Politico.com:
>> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/30/transgender-veteran-on-trump-military-ban-215432

There is so much that could be written, but, well, no wonder that John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington is ignored today in 2017 America. Confusion about original genesis has become a mental illness that is being legalized in front of God and everybody on earth, atheist, theist, Jew, Christian, Muslim, statist, globalist, original genesis original intent constitutionalist, etc.

What did John Jay imply by underlining the word "born" if NOT

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship/allegiance
ONLY by birth alone
ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married
ONLY to each other
ONLY before the birth of the child

Mario, tick...tock... it's only a matter of time before Prof. Akhil Reed Amar's "unwritten constitution" with it's "implicit" serendipities discovers that "gender essentialism" was not the ONLY essential that was implicit in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment "citizen" language in conjunction with the 1898 United States v Wong Kim Ark "citizen" fiat "declaration" by the Supreme Court.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Carlyle said...

Hey, check this out:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/09/21/anyone-heard-obamas-birth-certificate/

I was particularly fascinated by these comments.
I suspect about 90% of the sheep believe like this guy:

=====================================================

T.F. B0W
Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 2:00 PM

Hawaii also verified the information on the long form to two Secretaries of States.

prsmith is free to believe anything, but all the judges who considered the issued ruled Obama’s Hawaiian birth was sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.


prsmith
Friday, September 22, 2017 at 11:49 PM

Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan national and a British subject. Junior was born a Kenyan national and a British subject. He is not a natural born Citizen regardless of what those papers say.

=====================================================

THE LUNACY NEVER STOPS!

ajtelles said...

THE LUNACY...

Mario,

Carlyle's final "lunacy" comment is appropriate.

The word "lunacy" is a reference to "lunar", which is a reference to an outside force from earth which influences the ocean water and tides, i.e. the moon which is 132,000 miles from earth, which is 400 times closer to earth than the sun, which also has a "climate change" effect on earth.

What is the "outside force" that impels intelligent fellow U.S. citizens to say that a person born on U.S. soil or born on foreign soil to only one... yes, ONE (1)... U.S. citizen parent is an Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" and so eligible to be POTUS?

What is the "outside force"?

Well, as a customer of mine told me only two days ago (September 30, 2017) that only one U.S. citizen parent is the "natural" source of a singular U.S. "natural born Citizen" and that her fellow U.S. citizens who think that Pres. Donald Trump is a fellow citizen who wants to represent the U.S. Constitution as still relevant in American politics and American society, she said that people who think that Pres. Trump is truthful and honest are thought of by Democrats and Hillary Clinton supporters as being followers without understanding about what is happening in America.

In essence, she said that "natural born Citizen" promoters and Pres. Trump supporters are shallow thinkers, an opinion which she confirmed was informed by CNN, NPR, MSNBC and other left of "center", left of the constitution news sources.

The "lunacy" continues and it is becoming more obvious every day that CNN, NPR, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and et al. are experts in "shallow thinking" about what is true Americana and what is the true "original genesis original intent" of the founders and authors of "natural born Citizen".

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

Carlyle said...

Check this out. It is not the first time this week. Earlier, Chuck Todd, expressed the same dismay. Specifically he said that Judge Roy Moore did not believe in the constitution because he believes rights come from God, not the government.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/10/06/chris-matthews-bewildered-that-some-say-constitutional-rights-come-from-god/

If the ruling elites (i.e. our "betters") are this totally ignorant, how can they govern us? No wonder they have such trouble understanding the Presidential Eligibility Requirements. I bet these same people think we are a Democracy and not a Republic. I bet they are equally bewildered by the Electoral System and think it is some sort of archaic relic that interferes with the majority will of the people.

Perhaps the major cause of their ignorance (stupidity?) is in the following observation.
There is a book "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" in which the author maintains that in our big universities, they do not actually teach anything about the constitution itself. Even in the "constitutional studies" curriculum they do not study the history and background of the constitution, nor even walk through the body of the constitution itself. Instead, they focus all their energies on Supreme Court precedents and most particularly on the twists and turns of the 14th Amendment.

SIGH


Carlyle said...

This is EXACTLY the point.

One of my correspondents sent me this personal observation: "Most of the Libs' hysteria (no misogyny intended) over most talking points are usually just idly repeated drivel with no self research." This is SO true in SO many areas.

A simple case-in-point will provide a good example: When I first heard of claims against Obama's eligibility and birth narrative, I thought it was so preposterous as to be totally unbelievable. I was curious about what prompted this and why people would say these things. It took less than one hour of "self research" to discover something terribly important. While it is true that there is no credible evidence that he lied about these things, neither is there evidence that he didn't. This seems stunning - no records whatsoever, anywhere. Don't you think SOMEONE (MSM? Conservative politicians or pundits? Anyone?) would find this at least "interesting", and probably even "remarkable"? Instead, we find NO CURIOSITY WHATSOEVER. Just a total echo chamber.

What is the actual truth, I don't know. But neither does anybody else. Why is this not worthy of research? Why is this not alarming?

What we do know for sure is a lot of negative information. Foremost among these things are:

1. No birth or early childhood records - not even the putative hospital will confirm his birth.

2. No gradeschool, highschool, or college records, except one tiny scrap from a Muslim school in Indonesia.

3. No passport or other travel records.

4. Credible questions about the authenticity/forgery of the odd birth certificate posted by the White House.

Furthermore, any attempts to resolve any of these issues have been met with incredible resistance.

All this is known. What is not known is pretty much everything else.

Even this blog is drying up - almost no activity. Have we all fallen yet again into the bottomless pit of "at this point, what does it matter?"?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 216 of 216   Newer› Newest»