God Bless & Keep this man - the Father of Senator Ted Cruz!
Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Don't understand?? What book?
“And where is your legal argument to the contrary?
“
Made mine. You, like the other trolls, can’t read. Just too lazy I suppose. I am sure you have the mental faculties, you just don’t want to. Just like to bitch and whine about Cruz being effective. Talk nasty about his dad when that doesn’t work.
The book that people keep referencing when they claim it defines “natural born citizen”.
Not offended, just sorry to see what I presume to be intelligent people debating important issues stooping to childish levels, i.e. dipshit liberal tactics.
People can debate this issue and have disagreements with out resorting to name calling and labeled as trolls and malcontents because you hold a different opinion.
I don’t agree with your position on this topic, or others on this thread for that matter, yet I’ve not resorted to calling those on the same side names.
I’ll leave that part to the other side.
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.
Well, I'll be hog tied and fed no supper: I was wrong. I said nowhere in any law was the phrase "natural born citizen" used but here it is, and it claims the very thing Cruz's situation claims as well: An American mother giving birth in a foreign land whose father is also a US resident gives birth to a natural born citizen. Go figure. The very people that wrote the Constitution passed this law, but according to the trolls here they must be wrong.
And George Washington signed it, who was also president of the Constitutional Convention that wrote the part about “natural born citizen.”
I listened to the man’s interview a few weeks ago. I never talk to the radio in the car, but I did that day! I was cheering him on. I can see where Ted gets his ethics and morals. He was taught by a very intelligent man with life’s lessons learned and respected.
I’d even vote for his father as president. He respects every founding principle of this nation. Immigrant or not, he beats every other candidate out there. He understands freedom, and so does his son. He is worthy of being called an American more than most.
“And George Washington signed it, who was also president of the Constitutional Convention that wrote the part about “natural born citizen.””
Great point!
Ah, thanks for clarifying.
de Vattell did define NBC, whether you believe the Founders used that definition is up for debate.
I personally think de Vattell's definition makes sense when viewed that the Founders wanted un questionable loyalty.
For example, if Cruz became POTUS, granted the pipeline from Canada, could an argument be made he is partial to Canada because it's his birthplace?
You know the argument would be made and it has merit.
Similarly, even though Cheney divested any interest in Halliburton, the argument was, well, you know the history of that.
The point is, when a POTUS has no other allegiance other than to the US, loyalty becomes moot, and that's its what the Founder intended, JMHO.
And there’s even a congressional record of discussion regarding those points.
And there’s even a congressional record of discussion regarding those points.
You must have missed the "s" there on citizens....
BTW, that law was repealed in 1795.
“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”
End of story. Period.
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
. Ummm...? Where am I confused?
A father with foreign allegiance does not provide succor as NBC. Yes, no, WTF?
WOW! Thanks for posting that!
That's weird since Blacks LAW Dictionary has had a definition of Natural Law for a long time now.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged 7th Edition, Copyright 2000, (page 841)
Natural law
1). A physical law of nature
2). A philosophical system of legal and moral principles purportedly derived from a universalized conception of human nature and divine justice rather than from legislative or judicial action; moral law embodied in principles of right and wrong --- Also termed law of nature; natural justice; lex aeterna; eternal law; lex naturae; divine law; jus divinum; jus naturale; jus naturae; normative jurisprudence. Cf. FUNDEMENTAL LAW POSITIVE LAW
Here's Law.coms online definition -
Natural Law
n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises.
2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence assertion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.
--------
So far you've flung foul language and insults at people for simply disagreeing with you and I've refrained from pointing out your repeated hypocrisy...... but I will not remain silent while you or anyone else attempts to pervert the Intent of the Constitution by promoting the LIE there is no such thing as Natural Law, because whether you realize it or not..... Natural Law is where our inalienable rights are!
John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772;
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774:
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
“BTW, that law was repealed in 1795.”
Doesn’t matter. You trolls are arguing what the words “natural born citizen” means in the Constitution and that law says exactly what they intended as the law was written by those that wrote the Constitution.
Vattel is discussed in the congressional record as is British law regarding “natural born subject”. Apparently, based on the wording of the Naturalization Law of 1790, the British law won. Brit law accepted as a natural born subject those born overseas to one British subject.
And, just to be fair, Vattel did not use the word “natural born”. He used the French “indigenes” — “native”.
“BTW, that law was repealed in 1795. “
P.S. It also established that Congress gets to regulate who is considered a natural born citizen and Congress does so in USC 8 Section 1401, just as it did in 1790.
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.