Chin: Ted Cruz can be president, probably

News4Jax.com ^ | Published On: Aug 13 2013 05:59:22 PM EDT | By Gabriel "Jack" Chin Special to CNN

[Perdogg]

The Constitution says that only "natural born citizens" are eligible to be president. Is Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas eligible, given that he was born in Canada of a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father?

If Cruz runs, 2016 will be the third consecutive election in which there were questions about the right of a major party candidate to serve. Unfortunately, the Framers left few clues about exactly what a "natural born citizen" is; Congress has not used the phrase in citizenship statutes since 1790.

[MamaTexan]

And as to defining, modifying, or changing the meaning of the Constitution the power is set forth in the power of Amendment.

Any power of definition is written as such:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the

Any modification or changing of meaning requires the affected Article/clause be repealed, such as happened with the 13th Amendment.

Please show me the authority contained within the body of the Constitution to define the terms natural born OR citizenship or show the clause the 14th Amendment repealed.

-------

In WKA the Court stated the 14th Amendment was a positive statement and definition of the original terms "natural born citizen" and "citizen of the United States."

LOL! Can you not see the usage of the 2 separate terms used there?

BTW - The reason Jay said what he did about there being no 'collective' citizens of the United States was that everyone was still in Philadelphia. The federal enclave of D.C. wasn't occupied by the seat of government until 1803.

-----

The individual states enacted statutes which adopted the common law as the law of that state.

True

**** Hamilton employed that view.

You might want to check that. A search for the text of both phrases 'English common law' and 'national common law' showed no matches.

-----

This isn't adoption en masse of the common law at the federal level (Tucker's phrase "in the lump"), but rather interpreting the meaning of terms in American law by reference to their usage in English law. Tucker isn't denying the latter principle.

That wasn't 'Tuckers' phrase, It was a statement by the Founders, stating .

You're trying to use the Once Upon a Time theory of law...they did it so it means they thought everyone else could do it, too.

Yes, the WKA court used that definition but it would only have been within their authority to define if Wong Kim Ark was claiming citizenship as a native born citizen of Washington, D.C. The jurisdiction of native born citizens of the State of California claiming residence in the State of California resides only in the State of California.

-----

THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such

Aliens in England were called denizens. Aliens in America were called denizens.

Despite the fact it's been sourced, you keep ignoring the fact that denizens in the several States were under the jurisdiction of the several States

-----

Do you notice the remarkable similarity between Blackstone and the SCOTUS on this point?

Yep, SCOTUS went all the way BACK to Blackstone....despite the fact Tucker annotated Blackstone's Commentaries for use in America, part of which was titled:
Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States, which got him appointed to the Court of Virginia by President James Madison....

The WKA Court went ALL THE WAY BACK to the original Blackstone.

Gee, I wonder why?

-------

You're wrong because the clear language "citizens of the United States" in the 14A rebuts your silly claim there is no collective, federal citizenship

According to Joseph Story, the 2 types of citizens illustrates the separation of the jurisdictional areas of the federal and State government

-----

Every lower court ruling on Obama's NBC status has cited without hesitation either WKA or Ankeny (which cited WKA at length) or both.

Which is exactly what makes it so insidious. All the courts basing their findings on it are just as unconstitutional as IT was.

-----

There seems to be a missing "isn't"

it was an 'isn't', but I'd apparently missed in in the frustration of trying to post during FR's glitch-a-thon the other day.

[MamaTexan]

It was a statement by the Founders. , stating .

[CpnHook]

None of which has any bearing on Cruz being “citizen” by law.

That's true. My comments about WKA were directed to 1) the Court's statement that English common law is the etymological reference point as to "natural born citizen" and 2) the Court's analysis showing that a) the 14th Amendment provided an affirmative declaration as to the original term "natural born citizen" and that b) the common law meaning of NBC was incorporated into the 14A's "born in . . the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" terminology, so those are largely equivalent terms as to the native born. Since there are those on this Board (yourself included)who keep insisting the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with "natural born citizen," I offered that cogent and well-documented corrective.

I didn't delve into Part IV, other than to note that the Court there rejects Vattel and appeal to "international law" as having any relevance to the domestic law question of natural born citizenship. The Court then does go on to reject the notion that English statutory law which there made persons born abroad as "natural born subjects" was incorporated or modified the common law which was adopted in the U.S. So that portion of the opinion is hostile to a Cruz candidacy. (Rogers v. Bellei picks up on this portion of the opinion and further casts doubt (as of that time) on the Constitutional status of someone like Cruz. Whether that has subsequently been modified implicitly by Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS I'll leave to another time).

You don’t help yourself by citing Ankeny, which notes the fact that WKA does not support their claim . .

That's not what the Court in Ankeny said. Ankeny said that WKA provided "guidance" which supported the Court's decision. And in my prior post I laid out in clear terms just how WKA's analysis showing that the English common law rule making parent status irrelevant became the "same rule" under American common law and led directly to Ankeny's statement that "persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Here, you just recycle your same pat reply that citing Ankeny is stupid. To the contrary, I've demonstrated how Ankeny's decision flows straight from WKA.

"declares this “immaterial” without showing why,

But they did show why: Ankeny cites to the specific provisions of WKA that set forth rule that "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject" and that the "same rule" (meaning necessarily that every child born of alien parents was a natural born citizen) held true in the U.S. "Every child" thus includes Mr. Wong, so he was by the Court's reasoning a natural born citizen. You may stubbornly refuse to accept that absent being spoon-fed a statement like "we find that Mr. Wong was a natural born citizen." The Ankeny court, like most others, operates on self-feed mode and was able to connect the two dots quite easily.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not that it matters, at least in the technical sense. People can make an issue of it if they like, but 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens, while serving as President.

No they weren't Jeff. That is another one of your G*****ed Lies. The first Presidents were originally BRITISH SUBJECTS and then they BECAME US Citizens. The incidence is consecutive, not concurrent.

Once again, Jeff is DELIBERATELY LYING by falsely conflating Concurrent citizenship with Consecutive.

The founders were never citizens of two different allegiances at the same time. They were of two CONSECUTIVE ALLEGIANCES.

GOD! I HATE how you keep LYING with these little twists of yours!

THIS:

.

.

.

Is not equivalent to this:

Stop lying and misrepresenting things Jeff.

[DiogenesLamp]

I could easily name a few hundred high court decisions that you would be in complete and total agreement with.

A gun may fire properly hundreds of times, but if it blows up once, it's time to get a new gun.

[Jeff Winston]

No they weren't Jeff. That is another one of your G*****ed Lies.

Once again, you need to get back onto your medicine.

I wasn't referring to British citizenship. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all held French citizenship, WHILE SERVING AS UNITED STATES PRESIDENT.

Washington was given French citizenship while he was President. Jefferson and Madison were made French citizens before they ever took office.

Not one of them ever seems to have seen any need to renounce their French citizenship, or even to explain or make excuses for it, in order to be eligible to serve as United States President - even though that citizenship was a direct result of their close relationship as adults with the nation of France.

In other words, their French citizenship wasn't the result of some law that resulted in some country they never had any relationship with giving them citizenship because their father was a particular nationality.

Their French citizenship was a direct result of their REAL, PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with the nation of France.

Each one was a dual US-French citizen WHILE SERVING AS PRESIDENT.

Three out of our first four Presidents.

Wow. How's that for "divided allegiance," DiogenesLamp? Yeah, the Founding Fathers really wanted to absolutely avoid any POSSIBLE FAINTEST HINT of "divided allegiance," didn't they?

[DiogenesLamp]

I wasn't referring to British citizenship. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all held French citizenship, WHILE SERVING AS UNITED STATES PRESIDENT.

EVEN WORSE YOU TOAD! Nobody, and I mean NOBODY regards your French citizenship assertion as credible.

It is, in a word, another DISHONEST attempt to create a false equivalence between one thing and another.

They were LEGITIMATELY BRITISH SUBJECTS. They were NEVER French subjects owing allegiance to France.

I stupidly granted you credit for more intelligence than you actually posses when I believed you to be referring to their ACTUAL British Subject status. It really never occurred to me that you would actually try to pull that FRENCH CITIZEN UTTER Bullsh*t that you've mentioned previously.

Once more, it is evidence that you WILL NOT debate in an honest fashion. You just throw out ridiculous bullsh*t and wonder why we are sick of looking at the crap you post.

F***ing French Citizenship my @$$!

[Jeff Winston]

EVEN WORSE YOU TOAD! Nobody, and I mean NOBODY regards your French citizenship assertion as credible.

F***ing French Citizenship my @$$!

Sorry if you don't like it. It's a historical fact.

Oh. And please get some help.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry if you don't like it. It's a historical fact.

That a bunch of Presidents had "honorary" French citizenship may indeed be a historical fact, but what is BLATANTLY DISHONEST AND TANTAMOUNT TO LYING is your effort to impart ANY SIGNIFICANCE to it!

Once again, you deliberately conflate utter CRAP EVIDENCE as having some sort of merit. You imply that this honorary French citizenship is somehow EQUAL to the modern day DUAL CITIZENSHIP, when in fact, it is just another one of your many efforts to blow smoke and DECEIVE PEOPLE.

Some of Jeff's Smoke Blowing Equipment depicted below.

You just won't miss a trick in your efforts to obfuscate the discussion.

[Jeff Winston]

That a bunch of Presidents had "honorary" French citizenship may indeed be a historical fact, but what is BLATANTLY DISHONEST AND TANTAMOUNT TO LYING is your effort to impart ANY SIGNIFICANCE to it!

I wish I could easily duplicate all the big letters and stuff. It's very entertaining.

"So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen, but he certainly retained all his relations to the United States, his rights and duties as a native citizen, and was in fact after such naturalization, elected President of the United States."

- Nathan Dane, the "Father of American Jurisprudence," delegate to the Continental Congress, and author of the Philadelphia resolution that resulted in our Constitutional Convention; in A General Abridgement and Digest of American Law (1823)

[MamaTexan]

"So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen, but he certainly retained all his relations to the United States, his rights and duties as a native citizen, and was in fact after such naturalization, elected President of the United States."

- Nathan Dane, the "Father of American Jurisprudence," delegate to the Continental Congress, and author of the Philadelphia resolution that resulted in our Constitutional Convention; in A General Abridgement and Digest of American Law (1823)

On-line source for review, please.

[MamaTexan]

I guess this line went totally unnoticed

and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen, but he certainly retained all his relations to the United States, his rights and duties as a native citizen

There is that pesky native born and adopted differential in citizenship again.

---------

Come on, DL, lets repeat the living documenters' mantra:

A citizen is a citizen, is a citizen, is a citizen, is a citizen,...........

LOL!

[DiogenesLamp]

I wish I could easily duplicate all the big letters and stuff. It's very entertaining.

"So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen, but he certainly retained all his relations to the United States, his rights and duties as a native citizen, and was in fact after such naturalization, elected President of the United States."

- Nathan Dane, the "Father of American Jurisprudence," delegate to the Continental Congress, and author of the Philadelphia resolution that resulted in our Constitutional Convention; in A General Abridgement and Digest of American Law (1823)

At this point, I can't tell whether you are just being dishonest, or whether you are really THAT STUPID, or some of both. Yes, Nathan Deal says exactly what you want to hear. That The United States Ambassador to France was NATURALIZED as a French Citizen.

That this is exactly what you want to hear and that you repeat it, argues for the DISHONEST Jeff. But here's where the STOOOPID JEFF comes in. Do you honestly think for a moment that a man who represented the Government of the United States is going to give up his US Citizenship and take on French Citizenship? Are you really that stoopid?

I think the answer is yes, Jeff is really that stupid.

When I read it, I knew immediately that the assertion couldn't be correct because i'm not a fool. Any assertion of French citizenship would have to be honorary, not actual. Apparently the claim of "Honorary citizenship" isn't even true of Jefferson.

So, poking around the Internet I found this:

What we can conclude from this information is that Nathan Dane bought and spread the load of crap peddled by the Albany Register during the 1808 presidential campaign, and 205 years in the past, his stoopidity REACHES FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE and BITCHSLAPS JEFF!

So in conclusion, Yes, Jeff is REALLY THAT STOOPID. (and he wants to SHARE it with us!)

[CpnHook]

Please show me the authority contained within the body of the Constitution to define the terms natural born OR citizenship or show the clause the 14th Amendment repealed.

I've already shown you where the SCOTUS analyzed the 14th amendment to say it in part defined the original terms "natural born citizen" and "citizen of the United States." That is sufficient for most people to understand that there thus is a legal interrelationship between the original terms and the Amendment. I see no reason to keep repeating this, as you show a remarkable ability to keep denying obvious things. Another example is your continuing assertion there is no collective, federal citizenship, despite that the 14A speaks explicitly of persons being both "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Me:In WKA the Court stated the 14th Amendment was a positive statement and definition of the original terms "natural born citizen" and "citizen of the United States."

You: LOL! Can you not see the usage of the 2 separate terms used there?

I can.

The original Constitution used those two terms. And the 14A speaks of two means of citizenship - born and naturalized.

And your point here is what?

You might want to check that. A search for the text of both phrases 'English common law' and 'national common law' showed no matches.

This is what I quoted from Hamilton:

"But how is the meaning of the Constitution to be determined? . . .[W]here 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 [i.e., England]" On the Carriage Tax, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8.

You asked for the online source. I gave you that. So then you do a search for "English common law" and "national common law?" Huh? I gave you the Hamilton quote. Why are you off searching for other terms?

You seem to have a hard time keeping track of what the discussion is about at any given point. Partly I think that's because you rarely deal substantively with what I post, and instead just cut most of it out when replying and end up talking about some tangential thing.

Yes, the WKA court used that definition but it would only have been within their authority to define if Wong Kim Ark was claiming citizenship as a native born citizen of Washington, D.C. The jurisdiction of native born citizens of the State of California claiming residence in the State of California resides only in the State of California.

Wong was claiming U.S citizenship and was denied entry by the U.S. Customs office:

After such return, he remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until 1894, when he (being about twenty-one years of age, but whether a little above or a little under that age does not appear) again departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and he did return thereto by sea in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.

That "collective, federal citizenship" idea seems to be present on everyone's mind -- save for yours.

Me quoting Blackstone: THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such

You: Aliens in England were called denizens. Aliens in America were called denizens.

Not all aliens were called denizens; only aliens of a special sort. Per Blackstone: "A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject[.]"

However, children born in England to aliens (those who had not been made subjects) were still "natural born subject," just as children born in America to aliens (who had not been made citizens) were "natural born citizens."

Despite the fact it's been sourced, you keep ignoring the fact that denizens in the several States were under the jurisdiction of the several States

Citing to some piece and misconstruing its present relevance is not "sourcing." "Denizens" (as you term them) in the U.S. were under concurrent federal and state jurisdiction.

The WKA Court went ALL THE WAY BACK to the original Blackstone.

Gee, I wonder why?

Because the Court was ascertaining the English common law rule as to the children born in England to alien parents and Blackstone (among a host of English authorities the Court cites) was relevant to that question.

Wonder no more.

According to Joseph Story, the 2 types of citizens illustrates the separation of the jurisdictional areas of the federal and State government

Story doesn't divide jurisdiction that starkly based on the means of citizenship. He accepts that birth in the country makes one a citizen of that country:

"In his Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, published in 1834, [Story] said that, in respect to residence in different countries or sovereignties, "there arecertain principles which have been generally recognized by tribunals administering public law" [adding, in later editions "or the law of nations"] "as of unquestionable authority," and stated, as the first of those principles, "Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country." Story, Conflict of Laws, § 48.

But, again, whatever you think these early authorities meant is superseded by the 14A which clearly speaks of "all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. . . . are citizens of the United States AND of the state wherein they reside."

Citizenship exists concurrently at both the federal level (for all Americans, not just those in D.C.!) and the state level.

Which is exactly what makes it so insidious. All the courts basing their findings on it are just as unconstitutional as IT was.

Yeah, the 14th Amendment illicitly purported to "changed the original bargain" and that obviously got the WKA Court confused. The rest is history.

I think I have your rather unique take on this issue down now.

[MamaTexan]

I've already shown you where the SCOTUS analyzed the 14th amendment to say it in part defined the original terms "natural born citizen" and "citizen of the United States."

And I've shown you where they had no jurisdiction to do so.

The Supreme Court only has the ability to answer questions under the Constitution, and the only authority granted in the Constitution is that of Naturalization....not 'citizenship'.

-----

That is sufficient for most people to understand that there thus is a legal interrelationship between the original terms and the Amendment.

You're right, there is. Yet you harp on the declaratory clause 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States'...which DOES mean everyone in the country

and ignore the restrictive clause - and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.....which means the clause was just restricted to ONLY those people 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States....which is NOT EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY.

If they had meant it that way, the proviso of 'subject to the jurisdiction' would not even be there

Now, I've shown you the quote from Story. Lacking any presentation of evidence on your part -other than telling me how wrong I am-, means my conclusion is not in error.

-----

Huh? I gave you the Hamilton quote. Why are you off searching for other terms?

My bad. I thought your earlier quote in that post was connected to Hamilton.

This was a discussion that took place in 1774, prior to the establishment of American law, of COURSE the Founders used words from statutory English law. They had the authority to do such things because they had earned it by the Declaration and the Revolution.

Your 'equivalency' argument fails the smell test, because IF they had INTENDED the subsequent federal authority to have the same power, they would just have saved themselves a great deal of trouble, written 'We HEREBY create the United States' ....and gone home. There was no logical reason to painstakingly enumerate authority in the manner that they did in order to limit federal authority, if that same federal authority had the same ability to exercise whatever powers they decided they could.

-----

Citing to some piece and misconstruing its present relevance is not "sourcing." "Denizens" (as you term them) in the U.S. were under concurrent federal and state jurisdiction.

So, despite showing they relevant words applicable to the discussion, and a failure on your part to source the contention of concurrent jurisdiction, I am again wrong because you say I am....gotcha.

-----

Story doesn't divide jurisdiction that starkly based on the means of citizenship.

No, its not based on citizenship, but the citizenship IS based on location. You know, jus soli and all that.

Nice attempt on your part, though, trying to change the initial argument to prove your question.

-----

That "collective, federal citizenship" idea seems to be present on everyone's mind -- save for yours.

LOL! And Tuckers.
nor have since that time become citizens of the United States, or some one of them , are also aliens by birth.

-----

Because the Court was ascertaining the English common law rule as to the children born in England to alien parents and Blackstone (among a host of English authorities the Court cites) was relevant to that question.

The English law was immaterial in America, particularly since that law had been established for almost 100 years before the Ark decision.

Tuckers work was American law, which American courts are obligated to follow. There was no rational judicial explanation for the WKA court to go back that far, but there was a political one.

Guess who nominated Horace Gray to a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States in 1881? President Chester A. Arthur - the other President with ‘questionable’ eligibility.

Nothing like having a preemptive legal finding up your sleeve if someone raises the question, eh?

----------

But, again, whatever you think these early authorities meant is superseded by the 14A which clearly speaks of "all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. . . . are citizens of the United States AND of the state wherein they reside."

how ironic. You wrote it just as it would need to be written SHOULD IT SAY WHAT YOU CONTEND IT DOES.

subject to the jurisdiction thereof is the key phrase which you’ve omitted.

-------

Yeah, the 14th Amendment illicitly purported to "changed the original bargain" and that obviously got the WKA Court confused. The rest is history.

Um, no. I stated how it should be read and still stay within the confines of the Constitution, which would have changed nothing.

-----

I think I have your rather unique take on this issue down now.

And I have your as well. It boils down to ‘the law is whatever government tells me it is’.

Enjoy your servitude, and have a nice day.

[Jeff Winston]

Here's a link to Mr. Dane's Abridgement and Digest of American Law, in which he makes the statement cited.

Information on Mr. Dane himself is freely available with a google search.

[MamaTexan]

Thank you for the link. You are correct. The cite states exactly what you've quoted.

I found it interesting, however, that the continuation of the quote, as Dane stated that native citizenship took precedence in the event of conflict with the citizenship of other Nations, as in the case of Jefferson.

This would seem to invalidate your assertion of of 'dual' citizenship and its application to the Founders, because in the case OF citizenship (according to your source) 'dual' does not mean equal.

[CpnHook]

And I've shown you where they had no jurisdiction to do so.

The Supreme Court only has the ability to answer questions under the Constitution, and the only authority granted in the Constitution is that of Naturalization....not 'citizenship'.

Do you say the same for the Minor v. Happersett case? Or is the citizenship discussion in that favorite of the Vattel birthers enshrined while you conveniently side-step the citizenship discussion in WKA? Both decisions involved discussion of natural born citizenship. If the one Court lacked jurisdiction, then surely the other did. Or vice versa.

Yet, curiously, I've not seen you ever contend the MvH Court lacked jurisdiction. So you may understand the eye-rolling cynicism taking hold right now.

But do please explain.

You're right, there is. Yet you harp on the declaratory clause 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States'...which DOES mean everyone in the country and ignore the restrictive clause - and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.....which means the clause was just restricted to ONLY those people 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States....which is NOT EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY.

That clause isn't immediately relevant to the discussion, as it applies equally to define citizens at both the federal and state level. And since I was typing my last reply on an iPhone, I was eager to save a few keystrokes.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes from the otherwise jus soli rule those persons who are born in the U.S. to invaders, foreign agents, or members of sovereign indigenous nations.

Or does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean the residents of Washington, D.C. If I'm understanding your posts correctly, that would seem to be your view.

My bad. I thought your earlier quote in that post was connected to Hamilton.

This was a discussion that took place in 1774, prior to the establishment of American law,

Are you speaking about what I quoted from Hamilton? 1774? He's speaking explicitly about the Constitution! What I quoted he wrote in 1795. But, heck, what's 20 years? as your errors go, that is a small one.

Your 'equivalency' argument fails the smell test, . . .

Given that I didn't use "equivalent" or like term in my post, I smell a strawman being created.

. . .because IF they had INTENDED the subsequent federal authority to have the same power, they would just have saved themselves a great deal of trouble, written 'We HEREBY create the United States' ....and gone home. There was no logical reason to painstakingly enumerate authority in the manner that they did in order to limit federal authority, if that same federal authority had the same ability to exercise whatever powers they decided they could.

Yep, as I suspected, the Strawman is up and dancing.

I've never said the federal government has unlimited powers. The Bill of Rights limits those powers in such things as establishment of a state religion. (This contrasts our domestic law with the proposals of someone like Vattel, who asserted the right and obligation of public establishment of religion. )

So, despite showing they relevant words applicable to the discussion, and a failure on your part to source the contention of concurrent jurisdiction.

"Concurrent jurisdiction," on reflection, was not the best choice of terms as to citizenship. I'l think of a better one. But I did give the source: the 14th Amendment. If you don't want to take it from me, I can provide you with lots of critical legal commentary that explains it. Here's one bit from the Cornell Law School site:

While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it.6 The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.7 Congress’ intent in including the qualifying phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common–law rule of acquired citizenship by birth,8 as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.9 Source

I could supply you with lots of support for my position like this. But, I suppose, someone here might assert I'm committing the "argument from authority" fallacy. But if I omit such support I get you telling me how it's just my opinion I'm offering. I admire how you Birthers make it flow at both ends.

No, its not based on citizenship, but the citizenship IS based on location. You know, jus soli and all that.

And Joseph Story agreed, while also recognizing that such location-based citizenship confers a national citizenship:

"there arecertain principles which have been generally recognized by tribunals administering public law" [adding, in later editions "or the law of nations"] "as of unquestionable authority," and stated, as the first of those principles, "Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country." Story, Conflict of Laws, § 48.

The English law was immaterial in America, particularly since that law had been established for almost 100 years before the Ark decision.

Contrary to your opinion, Alexander Hamilton (in 1795) said English law was important to understanding the meaning of our U.S. Constitution:

"But how is the meaning of the Constitution to be determined? . . .[W]here 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 [i.e., England]" On the Carriage Tax, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8.

Oh, shoot, there I go doing that "argument from authority" thing again. It's just that when a Founder and Framer lines up on my side that way, it's hard to resist.

Tuckers work was American law, which American courts are obligated to follow.

Omigosh. So Tucker's work in effect binds all American courts? St George Tucker is thus the pinnacle of legal authority as to matters he has written on?

Dialogue with you can have that exasperating "like nailing jello to the wall" feel. But then you come up with original gems like that one. It's refreshing.

And I have your as well. It boils down to ‘the law is whatever government tells me it is’.

But it's a government with 3 branches and still an operating set of checks and balances. The legislature may say "this is what the law is" and the courts will say "no it isn't." The Congress can overturn court decisions through the Amendment process. And We The People through our federal and state legislatures can even change those "original bargain" things like the three-fifths compromise. (Or do you believe that should still be in force and the amendment changing it deemed ultra vires? You didn't really address this when I made the point previously.)

[Jeff Winston]

At this point, I can't tell whether you are just being dishonest, or whether you are really THAT STUPID, or some of both. Yes, Nathan Deal says exactly what you want to hear. That The United States Ambassador to France was NATURALIZED as a French Citizen.

Of course he was naturalized. He wasn't born a French citizen. There's no other way for him to become a citizen except through naturalization.

When I read it, I knew immediately that the assertion couldn't be correct because i'm not a fool. Any assertion of French citizenship would have to be honorary, not actual. Apparently the claim of "Honorary citizenship" isn't even true of Jefferson.

Of course you knew immediately that the "Father of American Jurisprudence" was wrong (and, apparently, a "fool.") Because his statement disagrees with what you want to believe.

Oh, and what you want to believe can't POSSIBLY be wrong. Why? Well, because DiogenesLamp is so incredibly brilliant. Far more brilliant than, for example, Nathan Dane - the Father of American Jurisprudence, and the man whose proposal led to us having the Constitution in the first place.

So in conclusion, Yes, Jeff is REALLY THAT STOOPID. (and he wants to SHARE it with us!)

Yes, because the editors of newspapers, and DiogenesLamp are FAR more brilliant in their legal understanding than the Father of American Jurisprudence.

This is about Act 45 of the same long play, in which you once again trumpet anyone who agrees with you, be it a discredited sore loser who was voted down 36 to 1 by James Madison and the First House of Representatives, an obscure judge whose job responsibilities covered a few counties, a newspaper editor or even a completely anonymous writer of an opinion letter to the newspaper, over and against the entire massed collection of the real authorities of the early United States, including George Washington, half the Signers of the Constitution who took part in our First Congress, James Madison, William Rawle who studied with Franklin's inner circle of Revolutionary leaders and Constitutional Framers, James Bayard with the support of the Great Chief Justice John Marshall, the great Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor James Kent and others, whose grandfather was Richard Bassett and whose father was known as the "High Priest of the Constitution," and now Nathan Dane, whose proposal led to the writing of the Constitution and who was known as the Father of American Jurisprudence.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course he was naturalized. He wasn't born a French citizen. There's no other way for him to become a citizen except through naturalization.

Of course a simpler theory is that he WASN'T naturalized.

Of course you knew immediately that the "Father of American Jurisprudence" was wrong (and, apparently, a "fool.") Because his statement disagrees with what you want to believe.

It disagrees with common sense. It defies credibility, and as it turns out, it was not true. Nathan Dane just didn't get the memo.

Oh, and what you want to believe can't POSSIBLY be wrong. Why? Well, because DiogenesLamp is so incredibly brilliant. Far more brilliant than, for example, Nathan Dane - the Father of American Jurisprudence, and the man whose proposal led to us having the Constitution in the first place.

This isn't a question of brilliance, this is a question of having the wrong information. Nathan Dane had it, and I don't. Jeff, as usual, picked the side which was factually incorrect. (and now he's trying to argue about it.)

Yes, because the editors of newspapers, and DiogenesLamp are FAR more brilliant in their legal understanding than the Father of American Jurisprudence.

You are a kook. You are literally a nut-job loose on a keyboard. You have been demonstrated to be so very very wrong that I doubt even your allies would defend you on this. It was a newspaper editor which MADE the false allegation, and now you are attacking the credibility of newspaper editors because others of them pointed out how silly this was? Even the newspaper (The Albany Register) which MADE the allegation retracted it! Was that editor wrong too?

You are a kook.

Nero, do you have any commentary as to the proof which I have provided regarding whether or not Thomas Jefferson became a naturalized citizen of France? Here it is again.

And here is the link to the book.

I will point out that this is one of several sources I found which say the same thing. Here's another.

And here as well.