Posted on 08/13/2013 3:12:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Statements from people (with a vested interest in the topic) indicate he was born in Hawaii, but circumstantial evidence indicates he might not have been.
We can pretty well establish that Stanley Ann was in Washington State in late August of 1961. Though there is some confusion regarding the University Records, Stanley Ann's friend explicitly remembers seeing her there in the later part of August of that year.
That Stanley would be in Washington instead of Hawaii so soon after the birth of her child calls into question the probability of a Hawaiian birth.
Of course, the other possibility is that he has taken advantage of the fine opportunity for research afforded by Free Republic, and has weighed the evidence and probabilities and come to a reasoned decision.
If we are going to claim that Vattel is the authority which swayed the founders understanding of "natural born citizen" then according to Vattel, you ARE a Natural born citizen.
If we follow Vattel's definition, we have to follow ALL of it, we can't just pick one part and ignore the other part.
A HI to WA trip so soon after birth is a great deal more likely than a British East Africa to WA state trip.
“Stanley Ann’s friend” is also recalling events of over 50 years ago. I’m old enough to remember events of 50 years ago, and I will state with great conviction that my memory is pretty vague, especially about things like dates.
I find the possibility of her being mistaken at least as likely as the newspaper of the time having a fake birth listed.
IOW, the friend’s recollection is not a fact.
“......”For the record, CNN said every constitutional law expert they interviewed for said Cruz is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be president.””
Did they give any names of their “constitutional experts”? I am not impressed. After all, this is from the Communist News Network that has zero credibility in the over 60 IQ-world.
Exactly. Like the Constitution, you cannot choose which parts to apply and disregard those you may disagree with.
Law of Nations/ Emmerich de Vattel / Book I / CHAP. XIX.
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
-----
I adore Cruz.....and I don't give admiration lightly......but he is not eligible to hold the Office of President.
But he would make one helluva Supreme Court Justice!
:-)
Yeah, he'd be a new sort of human that never existed, as far as I can tell.
I once took a look at his posting history, and couldn't find a single post from him on any other topic. Apparently, the bc issue is all he comes here for.
I've never seen him do anything else on this website.
Don't worry. He's on several people's radar. Tic toc...
And everyone of them is basing their opinion on the Wonk Kim Ark precedent which is at best, misinterpreted, and at worst wrong.
In a world where "Precedent" does not compound mistakes from the past, we know that the reality is much more complex and there is quite a lot of evidence that all these legal experts are ignorant and wrong.
I have never thought the Kenyan thing was plausible. One fellow over at American Thinker wrote several good articles demonstrating that a Kenyan birth is simply not a reasonable theory.
“Stanley Ann’s friend” is also recalling events of over 50 years ago. I’m old enough to remember events of 50 years ago, and I will state with great conviction that my memory is pretty vague, especially about things like dates.
Her Friend (Susan Blake or some such) claims that she remembers it so distinctly because it was just after she got back from her Vacation in Santa Monica. She said she had to leave early from her vacation because of the raging forest fires going on in the region.
While it is reasonable to believe that old memories can fade, it is unlikely in the case of memories linked to specific and noteworthy events. I happened to go to the trouble of looking up whether or not Santa Monica happened to have raging forest fires in August of 1961, and it turns out this is true.
As the result of this being a specific recollection, with the date verifiable as to the related event (Forest Fires in Santa Monica) I have to say her story is corroborated as to the date.
I find the possibility of her being mistaken at least as likely as the newspaper of the time having a fake birth listed.
I don't believe the newspaper had a fake birth listed. I believe the newspaper reflects accurately the information they were given. I just don't equate a newspaper notice to being an actual birth in Hawaii. Once again, Hawaii has strange laws which allow birth certificates to be issued to out of state residents.
All that is necessary to get a notice in the paper is to notify the Health Department that a birth occurred. Had Barry been born in Washington, or just across the border at Peace Arch Hospital in White Rock Canada, then Barry would still have been able to get a Hawaiian birth certificate if his Grandmother filled out the paperwork.
IOW, the friend’s recollection is not a fact.
It is somewhat corroborated. That moves it up a little higher on the proof scale in my estimation.
Thanks for providing a coherent response. Something a little rare on these threads.
Here’s the problem. There is evidence, admittedly not cast-iron in nature, that Obama was born in Hawaii.
There is absolutely none, AFAIK, that he was born any where else. Notably in Washington, which if true would still be American soil.
It is even less realistic that a nine months pregnant woman would be traveling internationally than that a woman would travel from HI to WA, which is, after all, only a six to eight hour flight, within a few weeks of giving birth.
IOW, we have evidence versus no evidence.
To each his own. I’m certain that there are tens of thousands who skip over the entire natural born citizen forum.
You’re referring to common law.
Natural law is the law that is written on the human heart or, IOW, the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments.
It’s application here is very remote, since reason does not tell us immediately which nation should claim Ted as a citizen.
Given that his mother was a US citizen, and his father was a Cuban citizen, it seems that either nation could claim him. But since the family had established residency in the United States at the time, it seems to me that the United States would have the greater claim.
I have my coherent periods from time to time. :)
Here’s the problem. There is evidence, admittedly not cast-iron in nature, that Obama was born in Hawaii.
But which they won't let us see, and won't confirm with any degree of rigor. They merely ASSERT that there is evidence, but no, we can't see it ourselves, we have to take their word for it, and they won't even swear it is accurate. Every phrase they use in referring to it is couched in ambiguous words that are not actually conclusive.
It is this constant suspicious behavior which convinces people that something is wrong. Had Barry simply released his latest Incarnation of his Hawaiian birth certificate back in July of 2008, this entire issue would likely never have amounted to anything. It is this sullen intractability that arouses all the suspicion. As I've said before, Dogs sniff butts, Cats run. If it runs, it's probably a cat.
There is absolutely none, AFAIK, that he was born any where else. Notably in Washington, which if true would still be American soil.
The thinking is that a good communist like Stanley Ann would want to avail herself of the free socialized medicine which was available just across the border in White Rock. (Her Aunt lived in Blaine, which is an American city that borders White Rock, but didn't have a hospital at the time.) But Proof? Not so far as I know either.
IOW, we have evidence versus no evidence.
We have suspicious evidence versus suspicious circumstances. Nothing seems solid with this guy. Nothing in his life makes sense.
And many of us wish that certain individuals were among them. Constant referral to the courts adds nothing useful to any of these discussions. Everyone is aware that the Courts are hostile environments to anything outside of their precedent based methodology. (Unless it's Liberal, then Precedent be D@mned.)
"Natural Law" as understood by the founders is based on that body of thought produced by men such as Locke, Rousseau, Puffendorf, Vattel, Grotius, Wolf, and others. It was the express declaration of natural principles as applied to men and communities. Ideas such as the right to self defense, freedom of association, and consent of the governed.
It was not some Amorphous jumble of emotions, it was a conscious analysis of the human condition with regard to how it should interact with it's fellow man.
It’s application here is very remote, since reason does not tell us immediately which nation should claim Ted as a citizen.
And that is EXACTLY the point. Reason DOES tell us immediately if someone born within our borders to citizen parents which nation should claim them as a citizen.
The answer is unequivocally US. It is crystal clear and immediate that no OTHER nation can lay claim to them, for they are utterly and exclusively born to an American Allegiance.
Confusion doesn't exist with NATURAL citizens.
Did Canada, at the time, just allow pregnant Americans to waltz in and give birth and have it paid for by government?
Also I'm not entirely sure Canada had a fully socialized health care system at the time.
Regardless, what is your reasoning regarding Cruz' nationality?
His mother was an American citizen. His father was a Cuban refugee in the process of becoming a citizen, and the family was residing in the United States.
Using your unaided natural reason, which country should Cruz have been considered a citizen of?
Canada?
Cuba?
The United States?
Please pick one and lay out your reasoning.
It doesn't matter which country he was a citizen of for our purposes. What does matter is that he was NOT a natural born citizen of any country.
So you say.
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.