Posted on 08/21/2013 8:40:51 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Over the course of just two days, the Washington Post pounded its readers with 12 "birther" stories aimed at Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Headlines included, "Can Ted Cruz Run for President?", "Canadian Born Ted Cruz Releases Birth Certificate Amid Queries if He's Eligible for Presidential Run," "Ted Cruz: I am Not a Canadian," and "No, Ted Cruz "Birthers" are Not the Same as Obama Birthers":
**snip
Though there is no legal question as to Cruz's eligibility to run for president (Cruz was born an American citizen), the Post has spent the last 48 hours bedeviling the Hispanic senator with articles obviously meant to put him on defense and plant a seed of doubt in voters' minds.
The timing of the Post's assault is also curious. By accident or design, it dovetails perfectly with a widely criticized Daily Beast hit-piece on Cruz that also focuses on and questions Cruz's past and background.
Since being elected to the United States Senate in 2012, Cruz has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of President Obama and his signature healthcare plan, ObamaCare. The Washington Post has endorsed Obama for president, and frequently used its news and editorial pages to defend ObamaCare.
In the past, the Post has also launched crusades to destroy the careers of many Republicans, including US Senate candidate George Allen, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, presidential candidate Rick Perry, and current gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli -- among others. The Post's modus operandi is similar to what Cruz is currently facing: The Post floods the zone with stories critical of the Republican in an effort to undermine their candidacy through character assassination.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I am not a liar. Barrack Hussein Obama lies his ass off.
Why would you believe a liar?
Oh... and next time, before you accuse someone of “lying about our Founding Fathers,” you might like to have the faintest clue of what you’re talking about.
You are making my point.
Oh... and once again, as your own source notes: Greisser’s father was basically a tourist in the US, or on a temporary trade mission. The younger Bayard’s position was that the US-born child of a German citizen WHO HAD HIS DOMICILE IN GERMANY was not a US citizen.
So it was a “no birth tourists” type position.
Not unreasonable, and not in conflict with the principle that if Greisser had been born here to a German father WITH HIS PERMANENT DOMICILE IN THE UNITED STATES, he would’ve been a natural born US citizen.
The question has actually been asked before, but it's a good question, and I'll happily answer it again.
No, I don't, and for a very specific reason. Bayard was very explicit in what was "requisite" (="required"). He wrote:
"It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth..."
Bayard then gives a specific case or example of a situation that matches that requirement:
"...and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
So the core thought is: All that is required is that a person be a CITIZEN BY BIRTH.
He then says "all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country" meet that qualification.
So too does Ted Cruz. He is just as much a citizen by birth as those children were that Bayard was referring to.
If we could channel James Bayard's ghost, I have no doubt he would tell us, "Yes, Mr. Cruz is eligible. He is a citizen by birth, and that is all that is required."
Hamilton’s draft for the Constitution. I’m not certain it was actually presented.
See Article IX
You're very correct, Ray. It wasn't presented.
Max Farrand, the well-known chronicler of the Constitutional Convention, noted something to the effect that its only real importance was as an indication of the personal opinion of Mr. Hamilton.
Sorry, should’ve pinged plummz to that last post.
Every proposal was the opinion of its author.
You have absolutely no evidence for this claim.
Hamilton was at the convention. Hamilton presented his ideas. That is why he was there.
Since Hamilton's idea on presidential eligibility was not adopted, we can safely say it was rejected.
John Jay's idea was accepted.
What’s your point? You didn’t answer the question!
Is that when you have to fight another person to the death to claim citizenship?
It was a patriarchal era. The citizenship of females was not an issue. They went where their husbands told them to go. Children as well did what the father directed.
A father could be a citizen, and it would be irrelevant about the mother. It seems a hard cold time, but it is the case for that era. Women did not vote and, therefore, were not a consideration and not even mentioned..
If we really want to cause a stir on Free Republic we should propose that Sarah Palin run under the understanding of female candidacy at the time of the Constitution.
What I love about this story is to see how totally freaked out the Communists/Islamists/Progressives/Democrats are over Senator Cruz.
IF the country was so in love with Obama’s progressive utopia, WHY would anyone worry that a Conservative might win?
Heheheheh....
Outstanding point that I am glad you brought up.
From the book In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle Against Discrimination in Nineteenth Century America by Charles J. Mc Clain
Page 363 footnote 4: “In a case decided 12 years later, Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920), the Supreme Court, following the principles laid down in Chin Yow, ordered a Chinese person admitted to the United States on the grounds that federal officials had disregarded evidence plainly relevant to his claim of citizenship. “It is better that many Chinese Immigrants be improperly admitted,” said the Court, “than one NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States should be permanently excludd from his country.”
That is not accurate. The "being a free white person" applied to the discussion of aliens being naturalized. See the 1790 law underlined at the bottom of this post. Also, please note that the same "white" requirement was also in the 1795 law.
Next, please note in the 1795 law that it says "the RIGHT of citizenship DESCENDS..." to those born to citizen parents overseas: 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 to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:
By saying that a RIGHT DESCENDS, it is saying that it is BIRTHRIGHT citizenship. It is the same as the use of "natural born citizen" in the 1790 law. It is a RIGHT and it DESCENDS from parent to child. By RIGHT.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Also, IIRC, the woman acquired the citizenship of the man when she married him.
Good point you raise; we so often look at those 1700’s writings through modern eyes.
Female vote and the understanding of female citizenship is one reason that current law on the issue of citizenship testifies powerfully to Congress’ authority to make all necessary and proper laws to carry out their power to regulate naturalization.
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.