Coulter: Ted Cruz might not be eligible for the presidency

Hot Air ^ | August 13, 2013 | Allahpundit

[DiogenesLamp]

So you say.

And that's all i'm going to do. I've posted links to the proof many times, and i'm tired of doing it. The issue of where McCain was born doesn't matter anymore. I don't think he could win a national election for dog catcher at this point.

I'm utterly disgusted with McCain.

[Ray76]

His father was a Cuban refugee in the process of becoming a citizen

Ted Cruz's father is Rafael B. Cruz, a Cuban who naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2005. The family left Canada in 1974. Thirty years is a long time to be "in the process of becoming a citizen". On what do you base your claim?

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

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.

My statement followed from an earlier discussion. My assertion is that if the definition of "natural born citizen" is hopelessly controverted, then we should revert to natural law arguments.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

On what do you base your claim?

Something I heard someplace.

[OldNewYork]

References?

[Ray76]

Some links to biographical info

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Cruz-s-life-defies-simplification-3946523.php

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/04/15/ted-cruz-texas-answer-to-marco-rubio/

[OldNewYork]

Thanks for the information. Is this the Vattel you’re referring to: http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html ? If your French is no better than mine, here’s the translation I found: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

A quote from the first link:
“Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.”

As interesting as the genealogy of an idea is, I’m going with the Constitution, as written and intended by the founders of this country, and as understood by tradition and convention since that time to just before the present day’s muddy waters. Though if Ted Cruz is indeed a natural born citizen, that would be good news (of a sort), because if a person likes Ted Cruz, they’re going to love me.

[Spaulding]

"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."

Yes we can Diogenes and we have. From “The Naturalization Act of 1795”:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, And President of the Senate.

APPROVED, January the 29th, 1795:

GEORGE WASHINGTON, President of the United States

Vattel’s Law of Nations is an amazing collection of legal wisdom, and certainly the principal authority used by our founders and framers. We used it for guidance more than any other work beginning in the 1760s when Benjamin Franklin had the publisher prepare some crude translations (from the French) so that he could send them to his colleagues in the Colonies. Vattel’s two volumes were our first law books, assigned by Thomas Jefferson when he created our first law school in 1779 at William and Mary.

But the 1795 Nationality Act clearly repealed the 1790 Act which did conform with Vattel. It was Barack’s Constitutional Law professor, advisor at Harvard Law, and member of his campaign committee Larry Tribe along with Ted Olson who composed the sneaky letter, part of the record in Senate Resolution 511, who conveniently forget to note that the 1790 act was repealed. No Congressional act since has mentioned natural born citizenship.

There are a number of other decisions at variance with Vattel, but Vattel explains his sources, Roman Law, Danish Law, Swiss Law,... concisely, and our justices and legislators explain theirs.

There was one variation that intrigued me involving the right of a citizen to renounce his/her citizenship. Vattel’s model gave the state the power to keep someone whose skills were considered important to the welfare of the state until he/she had trained a replacement. We haven't done that, nor is there a U.S. law that I know of reflecting Vattel’s ideal republic. But I certainly don't know, and didn't study U.S. law, other than to read the code affection citizenship.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Too bad I had to explain it a hundred times. It was like pulling teeth.

[Nero Germanicus]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y15Q9MEr3ws&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dy15Q9MEr3ws

[Spaulding]

Diogenese, since we are trying to help inform each other, I should also have included the next to last provision of the 1795 Nationality Act:

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within
the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such
naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and
jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided,
that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident
of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been
legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted
as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

The provision for children of citizens born “out of the limits of the U.S.” is why McCain is a citizen, and not a natural born citizen. Congress can and did extend limits to include embassies and specific military installations, but The Canal Zone was not one of them until 1937.

[DiogenesLamp]

The provision for children of citizens born “out of the limits of the U.S.” is why McCain is a citizen, and not a natural born citizen. Congress can and did extend limits to include embassies and specific military installations, but The Canal Zone was not one of them until 1937.

If my understanding is correct, a specific declaration is not required. If Vattel is the basis of the founder's understanding of the term "natural born citizen" (and it is our argument that it IS based on Vattel) then we must accept Vattel's position on the status of children born to citizens serving their country.

Not only that, but it just makes sense to regard the children of Soldiers as natural Americans. It is the father that imparts allegiance according to the ancient rule, and what better example can be set of love of country than risking or losing your life in it's service?

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes we can Diogenes and we have. From “The Naturalization Act of 1795”:

I'm going to have to look at the act and consider your point further.

There was one variation that intrigued me involving the right of a citizen to renounce his/her citizenship. Vattel’s model gave the state the power to keep someone whose skills were considered important to the welfare of the state until he/she had trained a replacement. We haven't done that, nor is there a U.S. law that I know of reflecting Vattel’s ideal republic.

It is my understanding that we HAVE done that in fact, but we may not have done it by law. Certain occupations (such as nuclear bomb technician) are absolutely prohibited from leaving the United States without permission. (I happen to have known some people such as this.)

There are certain skills and trades that the US won't allow to expatriate themselves. I regard this as being consistent with the Spirit of what Vattel was saying. Certainly the number of such people is far smaller as a percentage basis than was true in Vattel's time, but that is because various skill sets have become so widespread that they aren't regarded as essential to the welfare of the state.

Never the less, there are SOME skill sets that they will control very tightly, especially as regards their immigration to a Foreign country.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks for the information.

You're welcome. Knowing another bit of fact never hurts.

Is this the Vattel you’re referring to: http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html ?

Yes, that's the same Vattel.

If your French is no better than mine, here’s the translation I found: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

As interesting as the genealogy of an idea is, I’m going with the Constitution, as written and intended by the founders of this country, and as understood by tradition and convention since that time to just before the present day’s muddy waters.

The argument being put forth is that the founders learned of the ideas of Vattel in 1764 (if not earlier) and they were instrumental in creating the nation. Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of Vattel's "Droit des Gens" is purportedly riddled with notes for the Declaration of Independence. Even the Smog-Blowers have admitted that the connection between Vattel and the Declaration of Independence is unassailable.

It is argued that Vattel's ideas were the blueprint for a Republic around which our Constitution itself was formed. Vattel was Swiss. Switzerland was the only Republic in the World at the time.

They too overthrew their monarchy and established a Free Republic. Vattel was born and grew up in this environment, and that's why his ideas were so interesting to people attempting to form their own Republic.

According to the Supreme Court in the case of UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION et al.

The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel. 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826).

[DiogenesLamp]

Natural Law philosophy predates the Founders and the philosophers that you listed. It goes back to Aristotle.

Yes, I know. And what does Aristotle have to say on the matter?

From the Athenian Constitution
Part 26

Four years later, in the archonship of Lysicrates, thirty 'local justices', as they as they were called, were re-established; and two years afterwards, in the archonship of Antidotus, consequence of the great increase in the number of citizens, it was resolved, on the motion of Pericles, that no one should admitted to the franchise who was not of citizen birth by both parents.

And lest you think that was a mistake - Aristotle Book III:

Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?

...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;

...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.

...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;

Regardless, what is your reasoning regarding Cruz' nationality?

He is unquestionably an American Citizen, but it was no sure thing that he would have been at his birth. At that point he could have been Cuban, Canadian, or American.

That his parents steered his destiny towards the US we can all be thankful for, but it was not the only destination available to them. For Natural born citizens, there ARE no other choices.

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.

Had his father acquired citizenship in the 1960s, I would give him a pass on the question, because the founder's regarded the children of someone who was becoming an American citizen, the same as a natural born citizen. They gave them a pass as long as the Father had demonstrated an intent to reside and naturalize.

The Problem is, Cruz's father didn't do this in 1960, he waited till 2005. He appears to have been indecisive about committing to US.

That being said, I no longer care about the technical status of "natural born citizen." Obama has demonstrated that safeguard as completely defective, so i'm not going to insist that it be followed by our side.

[DiogenesLamp]

Did Canada, at the time, just allow pregnant Americans to waltz in and give birth and have it paid for by government?

If Stanley was Living in Blaine, (one of her Aunt's known residences.) she didn't have much choice. The nearest hospital was in White Rock. I would assume it was an emergency and that they more or less had to help her.

Also I'm not entirely sure Canada had a fully socialized health care system at the time.

I looked it up at one time, and my recollection was that Yes, they had implemented it in this area by that time.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. Whatever you say.

[BfloGuy]

We explicitly rejected English Common law as governing citizenship by breaking it when we expatriated ourselves.

We most certainly did not. Our entire legal system is based on English common law.

[Ray76]

Pulling teeth - more like an inane “point” from a 5th grader, which contributed nothing to the conversation.

[DiogenesLamp]

We most certainly did not. Our entire legal system is based on English common law.

Our civil and criminal law is based on English Common law. Our FEDERAL law (of which Citizenship is a prime aspect) is most DEFINITELY not based on English Common law. It is completely incompatible with it.

Britain is a Monarchy, we are a Republic.

We explicitly threw out all monarchical based laws.