Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
This is ludicrous. Cruz’s mother is an NBC. Cruz is.. Dershowitz is right...
To be honest with you, if Senator Cruz decides to run, I don’t care about his NBC status.
As the article spells out this issue, for some unknown reason, was never sufficiently spelled out in law, either by the Constitution, or settled case law as far as I (as a novice) can tell, while many here on FreeRepublic will dig deep into the minutia of issue to (probably accuratel) show the article incorrect.
IF I, as politically attuned as I try to be, cannot see a clear path to a definitely legal and lawful definition, how do you expect this issue to rise to the level of importance to actually be enforced? Especially with the traitors and cowards in both of the major political parties.
If Ted Cruz runs, I’m all in, NBC status or not.
Out of all possible candidates, with the exception of Sarah Palin, he is the real deal.
The rest are posers, cowards, and some down-right traitors to conservatism. And I do include Rand Paul with his Amnesty in this group.
His parents were both Texas residents who went to Canada to work in the oil industry there, then they RETURNED to Texas when the Senator was four... I would be interested in him running for the Pres.
It is our government that would like "Hispanic" to mean "the color of a brown paper bag." That is why an Argentine or a Chilean, or God forbid an actual Spaniard, does not count as an Hispanic when it comes to handing out the Affirmative Action goodies. Exceptions: White Puerto Ricans and white Cubans can work that angle, as can white Mexicans, Dominicans, etc. Go figure. Just remember, Juan Carlos de Borbón and Penelope Cruz are not Hispanics for government purposes.
Enough of that. It is clear that no matter what a candidate's provenance, he or she is SOL unless they can claim to have been born in Hawaii. Or their mother ingested Dole Pineapple products while awaiting the birth of a foreigner's child.I have spoken. And since the SCOTUS has not, my opinion is as good as anyone else's.
Now would be a good time. Tony S.-- Sam. -- Clarence-- John-- Tony K, cat got your tongues? Accept an appeal and get to work. They're on your desks.
I am with you 100%
Obama is an illegal alien!
He came here from Indonesia after being adopted and made an insdonesian citizen on an Indonesian passport and has never applied to become a naturalized citizen.
If he has a legitimate birth certificate it is in England having been born in the English colony of Kenya.
Well, of course. But it's not bad terminology if it gets you free stuff.
It doesn't matter what you actually look like as long as you have that handy-dandy minority card you too can be president without any real experience. It would be racist to point that out.
Can you check the box? Can you call whitey a racist even though your skin is technically lighter than your own? If so, then you are good to go.
Right and left will fall all over themselves to get you elected president.
Anchor babies not only welcome but preferred!
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.
“residents”
Oh well then, that changes everything. Just need a mailing address. Will a P.O. Box do?
So his violating the Constitution would be a plus for you?
Invalidating the very document that establishes the office of the presidency isn't a deal breaker?
It doesn’t matter what Cruz’s mother was. Dershowitz is wrong. We have more than 27 Supreme Court justices who have recognized that natural citizenship follows the status of the father, not the mother.
Look at the posting history. All three of them.
Not NBC.
Wish he, Rubio and Jindal were but, they ain’t.
Can’t let the camel in...
I asked your exact question multiple times during the 2008 Obama eligibility debates.
One guy wrote back that it just means that Representatives and Senators can be “naturalized” citizens, but a President can't.
That tosses the argument right back on what it means to be a “natural born” citizen.
When I grew up in the 1950’s and 1960’s, I can tell you that EVERYONE thought natural born citizen meant two citizen parents AND born on soil controlled by the US government.
I remember watching my high school debate team argue whether or not a child born on the high seas or in an airplane was a “natural born” citizen.
I think if we went back and examined every public school civics book from the 1960’s, it's likely that 100% of them endorse the “old fashion” definition of natural born.
Since Cruz was born in Canada, can he run for Canadian Prime Minister?
Thanks for providing it. You have done a very rare thing, which is to provide some evidence that genuinely IS in favor of the claim that it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
In fact you have produced something which, as far as I know, no one has ever produced before: A REAL source from early America, from an actual legal authority, that supports the claim.
There are some problems with the claim, though. In fact, it illustrates something that has repeatedly been true.
On those rare occasions when someone has actually produced some genuine evidence for the claim, it has ALWAYS quickly been overwhelmed by stronger evidence against it.
And this case is no exception.
First, let's list the points in favor of Samuel Roberts.
He was a Pennsylvania lawyer and judge. In fact, he presided over Pennsylvania's Fifth District Court of Common Pleas.
As a lawyer, he argued cases before the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court and was even admitted to argue cases before the United States Supreme Court.
And he wrote a book, as you pointed out: "A Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court, Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force, in Pennsylvania."
Now let's look at the minuses.
At the peak of his career, he presided over the Court of Common Pleas for 5 or 6 counties in Pennsylvania. By the end, which was around the time he published this book, his district comprised only 3 counties.
The Court of Common Pleas wasn't even the only kind of court in Pennsylvania:
The judicial power of this commonwealth shall be vested in a supreme court, in courts of oyer and terminer and general jail-delivery, in acourt of common pleas, orphans' court, register's court, and a court of quarter sessions of the peace for each county, in justices of the peace, and in such other courts as the legislature may, from time to time, establish.
The Court of Common Pleas was basically civil court, for several counties.
Not exactly national scope, or a major US Constitutional law portfolio.
Here's a second problem: Roberts says, clearly, that US law is different from that of England. And he even quotes Vattel.
But he fails to state any basis whatsoever on which our law is taken to be different. He fails to show that Vattel was ever applied to the Constitution. He fails to quote any US law at all that establishes that our laws were different in regard to citizenship of those born within the country than the laws of England, or that they had ever been changed from the old English rule that had applied while we were Colonies of England.
So it's simply an assertion, with nothing to back it up, except the fact that he quoted Vattel. Presumably, one assumes that he believed Vattel's ideas of citizenship applied in the United States. although (like the birthers of today) he can't show that anybody ever actually adopted Vattel's rule into our law.
Elsewhere in the book, he says that the English common law is generally in force in the State of Pennsylvania.
Well... guess what was always a part of the common law?
The rule for citizenship.
And guess who else, besides Pennsylvania, adopted the English common law (or continued to simply operate under their original English charters) to the degree that the common law did not conflict with new laws that they made?
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
In other words, there is good evidence that every single one of the original 13 Colonies promptly adopted the English common law, except to the degree that it conflicted with new laws that they passed.
And no State, as far as I can tell, EVER passed a law redefining the basic rule of citizenship to a Vattelian view.
In 1844, a New York State court judge, Vice Chancellor Sandford, concluded the same thing: All early States adopted the common law, and none of them had ever changed the basic rules of citizenship. Therefore, by American common law which applied throughout the entire United States, the common law rule was the same as had historically always been the case.
And since it was the common law of every State in the Union, it became the common law of the country.
In 1898, the US Supreme Court, in US v. Wong Kim Ark, said essentially the same thing: That the same rule had always applied, first in England, then in the English Colonies, then in the United States after the Revolution, then in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution.
By that rule, all persons born on US soil were natural born citizens.
Finally, whatever authority Roberts might have, it pales to nothing against the authority of someone like William Rawle, who directly contradicts him. Roberts' chief responsibility was judging civil cases for several Pennsylvania counties. Before he even became a lawyer, William Rawle was the United States District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania. Unlike Roberts' state position, Rawle's was a US government position. So while Roberts had a responsibility to know Pennsylvania law, Rawle had a responsibility to know US law.
Roberts wrote a book that for the most part, simply compiled into one source the various English statutes that were understood to still be in force in the State of Pennsylvania.
Rawle wrote one of the most important expositions on the United States Constitution in early America. It was used as a text at Harvard, Dartmouth, West Point and probably other places.
Rawle also had an intimate acquaintance with and knowledge of the Founders and Framers that Roberts simply did not possess. As mentioned above, he is known to have met regularly and discussed politics and law with both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and to have been present in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention.
Incidentally, Rawle was also offered the posts of federal judge for the entire State of Pennsylvania, and of United States Attorney General, by George Washington, but he turned those particular posts down.
There simply is no comparison between Samuel Roberts and William Rawle.
I have examined hundreds of quotes from civics books and legal sources, from throughout American history.
Whatever your memory (mine is of hearing that any kid born in America could grow up to be President), as far as I am aware, there does not seem to be one single historical public school civics book, from the 1960s or any other decade, that claims birth on US soil plus two US citizen parents are required.
They universally say things like, "born in the United States" and "born a citizen."
The most you can legitimately say about Bingham is that he is ambiguous or unclear. Why do you attempt to skew the evidence? As birthers always do, you leave out the Bingham quotes where he equates “natural born citizen” with “born a citizen.”
Not that Bingham was an early source, anyway. He didn’t start talking about citizenship until around 75 years after the Constitution was written.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.