Replies

Except that does not pass the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Of course it does.

The First Congress, which with President Washington included almost half the Signers of the Constitution, specified with absolute clarity that people born US citizens abroad - LIKE TED CRUZ - were "to be considered as natural born citizens."

Since the only legal meaning and implication of a person being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was that the person was eligible to be elected President, it is absolutely clear that they intended for such persons to be eligible.

In 1833, James Bayard - whose grandfather Richard Bassett was one of the 39 Signers of the Constitution and literally our US Senator #1, and whose father was also a Senator known to his peers as "the High Priest of the Constitution," wrote an exposition on the Constitution.

In that exposition, in the discussion on PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, he stated,

"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

You couldn't say any more plainly: TED CRUZ IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.

Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was read - AND APPROVED - by the Great Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall, who dominated the Court for close to 40 years starting just a dozen or so years after the Constitution was ratified. Marshall corrected Bayard on a minor point involving Congress' authority to build roads, but said that other than that, he found nothing in Bayard's book that was not, "in my judgment, entirely just."

His exposition was also read and applauded by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, by the famous early legal expert Chancellor James Kent, and other prominent jurists.

So it is very CLEAR that the Founding Fathers did, in fact, intend for people like Ted Cruz to be eligible to be President.

I know that you and the other birthers have your theory. But history is not a matter of theory. History is a matter of FACT, and the FACTS of what our early national leaders said and did are solidly and strongly against your birther theory.

In general I agree with your position. But there is a problem with applying this quote directly to Cruz.

At the time of the Constitution, the common law of the states viewed the citizenship of husbands and wives quite differently. In fact, a wife was often considered to automatically take her husband's citizenship upon marriage, since the two were legally considered to be one person under the doctrine of coverture.

IOW, there is considerable question whether under constitutional original intent Cruz (and Obama) would have inherited American citizenship from their American mothers under jus sanguinis. I believe Obama was a citizen under jus solis, but Cruz obviously is not.

During the 19th and early 20th century Congress passed laws that automatically stripped women of US citizenship when they married a man of foreign citizenship, at least if they resided outside USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_Act_of_1868

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_Act_of_1907

These provisions were repealed in 1922, so it obviously doesn't apply directly to Cruz, but its passage indicates very strongly that as late as 1907 the citizenship status of women, and therefore their ability to pass citizenship to their children via jus sanguinis, was viewed as being changed by marriage to an alien in a way that a man marrying an alien did not affect him or his children. Which implies that inheritance of citizenship from mother as opposed to father would have been viewed differently by the Founders.

And you can pretty much bank on anything written by Jeff Winston is an attempt to mislead.

And here is Jeff doing his BLATANT LYING. He quotes James Bayard's book in a misleading manner.

"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

Here is how he lies. He equates "Citizen by birth" without defining the term. According to the Understanding of James Bayard, and According to the Understanding of his son Thomas, The ONLY way to be a "citizen by birth" was to have an American father.

United States Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard.

Jeff knows this. He's had it beaten into his head about twenty times in the last week. Jeff is lying about this because he knows what is the truth and still repeats what is false.

Bottom line. Jeff LIES to make his point. He can't do it without lying because his point is factually wrong.

Jeff, you’ve already tried foisting that nonsense in another thread.

Here’s the historic fact of U.S. Secretary of State Bayard determining that one born in the U.S. to an alien father was NOT even a U.S. citizen at all:

“The son, therefore, so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth OF THE SAME NATIONALITY AS HIS FATHER. Had he REMAINED in this country till he was of full age and then ELECTED an American nationality, he would on the same general principles of international law be now clothed with American nationality.

...”By section 1992, Revised Statutes, enacted in 1866 — “All persons born in the United States, AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

By the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ratified in 1868 — “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside.”

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth “SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER” and “NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.” He was NOT, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is NOT pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.”

Source: A Digest of the International Law of the United States
http://books.google.com/books?id=wdgxAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

If one born in the U.S. to an alien father isn’t born a citizen because at birth was “SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER,” it would stand to reason that one born abroad “SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER” likewise isn’t born a citizen.

Plain as day. BOTH Obama and Cruz are Constitutionally INELIGIBLE.