Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dershowitz: Ted Cruz one of Harvard Law’s smartest students
Daily Caller ^ | 5/9/13 | Charles C. Johnson

Posted on 05/09/2013 7:44:25 PM PDT by Nachum

Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz ranks Sen. Ted Cruz among the school’s smartest students, adding that the Canada-born Texan can run for president in 2016.

Cruz was a “terrific student,” Dershowitz told The Daily Caller. “He was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view. He didn’t strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian.”

“He had brilliant insights and he was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responses,” Dershowitz added.

Dershowitz also gave a high estimate of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren — who has decidedly different political views than Cruz.

Dershowitz says he and Cruz would often debate issues presented in Dershowitz’s criminal law class. “Cruz’s views were always thoughtful and his responses were interesting,” the law professor explained. “I obviously disagreed with them and we had good arguments in class. I would challenge him and he would come up with very good responses.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Canada; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts; US: New York; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: alandershowitz; canada; cruz; dershowitz; elizabethwarren; harvard; massachusetts; naturalborncitizen; newyork; smartest; tedcruz; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-284 next last
To: DiogenesLamp

I guess you were unaware or forgot that in the Georgia ballot challenge trial where Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski refused to participate, Judge Michael Mahili was ready to issue a default judgement as a penalty but the plaintiffs’ attorneys begged the judge to not issue a default judgement and to conduct a trial on the merits. Judge Mahili acceded to the plaintiffs’ wishes and the plaintiffs’ lost on the merits.


261 posted on 05/13/2013 7:04:14 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
I do recall it now that you mentioned it, but the doings of the courts and the various challenges in the courts hold little interest for me. I have argued repeatedly that it was a mistake to proceed with this sort of stuff when the battleground had not been softened up first.

I *Knew* the courts were going to worship the "Wong" precedent, and reasoning with them was going to be a waste of time.

I advocated following the same strategy as the NRA. Plant small seeds, look for favorable jurisdictions, file plausible pleas (such as a signed statement by Nancy Pelosi is inadequate proof.) and work to change the courts and the narrative.

The Courts have long been a pursuit of politics by other means. It is a fiction that they are concerned with the law above all else. Most of them are just petty dictators applying their own subjective whims.

262 posted on 05/13/2013 7:11:16 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill:
“[the judiciary] is the worst method of resolving disputes, except for all those other methods that have been tried from time to time.”


263 posted on 05/13/2013 7:29:11 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Bull****. Neither said a thing about the meaning of natural born citizen in The Venus.

Just keep telling yourself that Jeffy Baby.

Here's the link to the Opinion in The Venus, you jerk.

Now give me the quote from Chief Justice Marshall, where he mentioned "natural born citizen" or "natural born citizenship." And give me the quote from Justice Washington, in which he mentioned "natural born citizen" or "natural born citizenship."

Failing that, give me the quotes where they spoke of Presidential eligibility.

264 posted on 05/13/2013 7:40:08 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
The quote that Marshall uses talks about natural citizenship at birth:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

The society canot perpetuate itself but by the children of citizens. These children naturally follow the condition of their fathers. The NATIVES are those born in the country of parents who were it citizens.

The U.S. Constitution was established by we the people for ourselves and our posterity ... IOW, for the citizens and the children of citizens. The natural status at birth is to follow the condition of the father, thus = natural-born citizen. natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Several years later, the Minor court unanimously affirms this concept and says that natural-born citizens are the same as natives: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

If we go by Marshall in basing such questions on the law of nations, and recognizing that children naturally follow the status of their fathers, then neither Obama nor Cruz nor anyone else not born to a citizen father is a natural-born citizen.

265 posted on 05/15/2013 11:03:43 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: edge919; DiogenesLamp; 4Zoltan; Cold Case Posse Supporter; HawkHogan; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; ...
I have pinged some other folks who may be interested in a new find regarding natural born citizenship (Chief Justice John Marshall's position, latter part of post).

The claim that we ever used Vattel's idea of citizenship is complete and absolute bullcrap. One really can't even make a case for it without stretching something somewhere.

Like here.

The quote that Marshall uses talks about natural citizenship at birth:It does. Wow. He even uses the passage in Vattel that you're so attached to.

But he doesn't use it to say that we ever adopted Vattel's idea of citizenship. He uses it to explore Vattel's opinion of how we should treat an American living in England, while we are at war with England.

Oh! And he DOESN'T EVEN USE the edition of Vattel that mistranslates "indigenes" as "natural born citizens." So his discourse contains NO COMMENTARY ABOUT NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP AT ALL.

And this is some of the BEST that birthers can come up with to support their crapola Constitutional theory.

The BEST, mind you.

A case that doesn't mention natural born citizenship at all (let alone give any kind of judgment about it), that uses the "right" passage from Vattel, but doesn't even use the translation that says "natural born citizens!"

It's bull****.

Now I'm not blaming you for coming up with it. It originated with somebody else.

But you've bought into the false theory, and promoted it to others.

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base.

Applicable to WHAT subject?

The subject Chief Justice Marshall is talking about is MARITIME CAPTURES. The seizing of ships on the high sea in time of war.

OF COURSE the decisions applicable to that subject rest on the law of nations.

It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

And this is exactly what Marshall cites Vattel in reference to.

NOT WHO THE UNITED STATES CONSIDERS TO BE A CITIZEN, OR A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

ON WHAT POINT?

On the point of HOW WE REGARD AMERICAN CITIZENS RESIDING IN A COUNTRY WE ARE AT WAR WITH.

He then quotes the passage of Vattel. Vattel never used the term "natural born citizens" in this passage. He didn't even use the French equivalent. He said INDIGENES.

Natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

IF you accept Vattel's ideas of citizenship - WHICH NOT EVERYBODY AGREED WITH, EVEN AMONG THE WRITERS ON THE LAW OF NATIONS - then yes, "natives or indigenes" are those born in, blah, blah.

BUT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS ARE THE SAME THING NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS ALWAYS WERE, EXCEPT FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBJECT AND CITIZEN.

THAT'S WHY THEY USED THE TERM "NATURAL BORN," INSTEAD OF USING THE TERM "INDIGENE."

Several years later, the Minor court unanimously affirms this concept and says that natural-born citizens are the same as natives: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

BULL****. Minor says that those people were undoubtedly natural born citizens. They never said those without citizen parents weren't.

In fact, that quote was quoted by the Wong Court for the purpose of making the point that the Minor Court WASN'T committed to the idea that children of non-citizens were not born citizens.

If we go by Marshall in basing such questions on the law of nations, and recognizing that children naturally follow the status of their fathers, then neither Obama nor Cruz nor anyone else not born to a citizen father is a natural-born citizen.

No. You want to go by Chief Justice John Marshall?

Chief Justice John Marshall reviewed James Bayard's 1834 book, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. IN DETAIL.

Chief Justice Marshall corrected Bayard on one point: Congress, he said, didn't have to ask the States for permission to build post roads and military roads. They already had it.

Chief Justice Marshall added, "With this exception, I do not recollect a single statement in your book which is not, in my judgment, entirely just."

And what else does Bayard say in his book?

"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."

This comment was made specifically in the context of Presidential eligibility. So Chief Justice John Marshall agreed completely that it only requires citizenship by birth to be a natural born citizen, and that children born US citizens overseas because they had US citizen parents were also natural born citizens and eligible to the Presidency.

We can therefore add Chief Justice John Marshall to the long, long list of genuine Justices and other legal authorities who refute the birther BS that it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen.

In fact, this theory is now shot so full of holes it's a wonder there's anyone who dares to pretend they give it the slightest bit of credibility.

266 posted on 05/16/2013 11:28:07 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Incidentally, this has direct bearing on the eligibility of Ted Cruz to be President. According to John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, Ted Cruz is certainly eligible to be elected President.
267 posted on 05/16/2013 11:56:55 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Great Post!
I want Cruz to run, just so we can defeat the birthers, who really don't care if they are wrong on what the law really means.
Birthers tell you what they WANT the law to mean, but can not back up their claims for what they think it does mean.
268 posted on 05/16/2013 12:11:07 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Nothing you quoted contradicts Vattel, but your deceitful and twisty little mind is going to claim it as being a support for your side, just like that French Janitor, and the Spanish Garbage collector, along with your English Lawyers. It's time to beat Jeffy boy down again.

Chief Justice Marshall added, "With this exception, I do not recollect a single statement in your book which is not, in my judgment, entirely just."

This statement requires three things to be true in order for it to support Jeff's theory.
1. That Chief Justice Marshall meticulously digested every single aspect of the book with the anal retentive obsession and specific attention to the detail of which Jeff is interested in, rather than just perused it.
2. That Chief Justice Marshall also interpreted that quote in the book in exactly the same anally retentive manner that Jeff wants him to.
3. That it Violates what Vattel said.

Let's look at it. That Number (1) is false is demonstrated by Jeff's very own quote of Marshall. "...I do not recollect ...". Had Marshall been as thorough as Jeff's desperate need requires, he would not have qualified the statement with an implication that he might have forgotten something.

That Number (2) is also false is demonstrated by the fact that if Justice Marshall follows the Vattel Definition of "natural citizen" then being "born a citizen" would be by that process, so there is no conflict.

That Number (3) is false is demonstrated by the Fact that Vattel doesn't disagree with Bayard's statement, because Bayard is advocating the Jus Sanguinus rule of citizenship.

"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."

Let's see what Vattel had to say about this from the 1902 Fenwick Translation of the 1858 Droit des Gens.

.

.

Three strikes and your out Jeff.


269 posted on 05/16/2013 1:01:21 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Incidentally, this has direct bearing on the eligibility of Ted Cruz to be President. According to John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, Ted Cruz is certainly eligible to be elected President.

No he isn't. Unlike you, Marshall is well aware of the rule that citizenship passes through the father. Mothers were automatically naturalized into the citizenship of their Husbands, and that was the common legal practice throughout history. (Hence both parents being the same nationality.) That Congress comes along in 1934 and granted women the ability to pass citizenship on their own, makes all such citizens naturalized and statutory. It created an artificial condition which never existed before. A jus sanguinus dual citizen.

This is a very different thing from "natural." It is, in fact, about as "unnatural" as it gets. This hodgepodge of legal stupidity can actually create a "triple" citizen.

Now i'm sure Jeff is going to lyingly add Marshall to his list of other supporters which he is also mostly lying about, but this is the sort of thing we've come to expect of Jeff.

270 posted on 05/16/2013 1:10:51 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

See Jeff, I told you it was utterly wrong and stupid. Look who is agreeing with you. :)


271 posted on 05/16/2013 1:11:27 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: ObligedFriend

Jeez, you are a moron.
Cruz never has been either Canadian or Cuban.
Hell! He has never even been to Cuba!


272 posted on 05/16/2013 4:06:53 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear what is unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Kansas58
See Jeff, I told you it was utterly wrong and stupid. Look who is agreeing with you. :)

There's nothing "smiley," or "funny," or humorous in your little insult of Kansas58.

You're a poor excuse for a human being. Your comments and behavior on here have marked you to me as such from the day you said you would cheer if I, an honest and sincere fellow conservative who has never harmed anybody in my life, could be "taken out and shot."

273 posted on 05/16/2013 6:23:50 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
BULL****. Minor says that those people were undoubtedly natural born citizens. They never said those without citizen parents weren't.

That's a whole lot of nonsense you've written. Of course, it's obvious that you're overdoing it hoping you intimidate your way out of a lost point. And to this specific point you now claim: BULL****. The Minor court EXCLUSIVELY characterized the children born in the country of citizens are natural-born citizens. What other reason does it serve to say ANYTHING about being born to citizen parents?? The only other option for citizenship at birth is through the 14th amendment and the court has already said that it does NOT define natural-born citizenship. There are no other criteria that fits. Otherwise, the court should have accepted Virginia Minor's argument, but they didn't. And the definition that the Minor court is a verbatim match of the Law of Nations definition cited by Marshall in the Venus. That's not by accident. And sorry, but the Bayard book is meaningless because we have a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decision in Minor that tells EXACTLY what constitutes the term natural-born citizen.

274 posted on 05/16/2013 9:17:19 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Of course this has been talked about now for the last couple of years.

And of course it’s bull****. It’s OBVIOUS bull****, and there’s not a single person who matters in the entire world who believes it.

In fact, a court specifically ruled that Minor DOES NOT SAY what idiot birthers claim it says.

It’s wrong on so many different levels, there’s no accurate way to characterize it other than calling it bull****.


275 posted on 05/16/2013 9:21:46 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Not a single person believes it?? As you say: bull****. The Supreme Court believed it UNANIMOUSLY in Luria v. United States when it cited Minor and NOT Wong Kim Ark to define presidential eligibility. You and other Obama apologists have NOTHING to support your errant beliefs. But it’s no problem, because I’m here to help you learn the truth.


276 posted on 05/16/2013 9:29:24 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Luria simply said: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”

THAT’S FREAKIN’ IT. One freaking sentence.

Do you know what “NATIVE” means? It means that YOU ARE FROM SOME PLACE. It has nothing to do with whether your parents are “citizens,” or not. And nobody in early America, or for that matter, NOBODY IN ALL OF HISTORY, EXCEPT FOR SOME SWISS PHILOSOPHER THAT NOBODY IN AMERICA EVER LISTENED TO ON CITIZENSHIP, has EVER said differently.

Ah, but. There was a Swiss guy, who ALONE, out of ALL THE WORLD, over in Switzerland, in FRENCH, said “natives” really had to have citizen parents.

Never mind what the ENTIRE REST OF THE FREAKING WORLD had to say.

You’re an idiot.


277 posted on 05/16/2013 10:05:33 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: edge919
You and other Obama apologists have NOTHING to support your errant beliefs.

Ignoring your idiotic assertion that I'm an "Obama apologist" (which is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY UNTRUE):

I have only every REAL authority who ever spoke on the matter in early America.

I have yet to add Chief Justice John Marshall, who was Chief Justice for 35 years starting in 1801, and President James Monroe. But I'll get around to it.

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America

"Natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used interchangeably by State of Massachusetts (1785-1790).

This is important because it shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States. And "natural born subject" had a long legal history. All persons born in the country, even of alien parents, were "natural born subjects," except for the children of representatives of foreign governments, and of invading armies. Here are some examples:

February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.

March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.

November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.

In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

In many or most of the States, in fact, the use of "natural born subject" in law gradually gave way to use of "natural born citizen" in the same circumstances. French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):

“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”

This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional"). One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.

James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

The First Congress (1790):

"And 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.".

Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. This makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.

Between the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency, 16 signers of the Constitution - a full 40% of those who signed the Constitution - were members of the group who approved this Act.

They included: James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, and Nicholas Gilman (US House of Representatives), William Samuel Johnson, Richard Bassett, George Read, William Few, John Langdon, William Paterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris and Pierce Butler (US Senate), and President George Washington.

French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):

“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)

By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.

Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):

"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.

Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):

"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."

Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.

Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.

French translation, (translated, 1799):

“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”

Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."

Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):

“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)

Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):

“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship..

Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):

“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”

And again.

Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)

“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”

Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."

From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):

“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”

From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.

French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):

“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”

This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.

French books on the Constitution:

“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)

Born citizen, born a citizen.

“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)

Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.

By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.

Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.

American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:

“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”

Again: The rule was by the common law.

Another French translation, 1837:

“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”

Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.

State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):

“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”

Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.

Tennessee State Legislature, An Act to Regulate and Declare the RIghts of Foreigners (1838)

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

Clearly defines what "natural born citizen" meant to the Tennessee State Legislature in 1838. Anyone born within the limits of the United States was a natural born citizen without any regard to parentage.

From Spanish-language books on the Constitution (translated):

“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)

Born a citizen.

“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)

Born in the United States. No mention of parents.

Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):

“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)

"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."

Native citizen.

Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):

“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”

America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.

Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:

"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."

In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”

A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."

278 posted on 05/16/2013 10:08:38 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Luria simply said: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”

THAT’S FREAKIN’ IT. One freaking sentence.

It's not just the sentence, but the citations that follow that sentence and the conspicuous absence of any reference to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The first citation is of course to Minor, which exclusively characterized NATIVE and Natural-born citizen with this same definition: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. And you still have NOTHING.

279 posted on 05/16/2013 10:10:48 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I have only every REAL authority who ever spoke on the matter in early America.

Sorry, but you DON'T have ANY real authorities. Nothing you've quoted supercedes or Trumps UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decisions that EXCLUSIVELY defined natural-born citizen as all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Your own Bayard citation disagrees with some of what you quoted here because of some it relies exclusively on birth in the country while Bayard MUST rely on Jus Sanguinis. Moreover, you quote a bunch of nonsense, such as "a Spanish language book on the Constitution." What a ****ing joke.

280 posted on 05/16/2013 10:17:09 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-284 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson