Iran nuke deal and Ted Cruz eligibility have something in common

Legal Insurrection ^ | 03.27.2015

[Perdogg]

On March 27, 2015, I appeared in studio on Washington’s Drive at Five hosted by Larry O’Connor on WMAL 630 in D.C.

We touched on two completely unrelated, but interesting, subjects: Obama’s plan to make an end run around Congress to the U.N. Security Council to sign a nuke deal with Iran, and claims that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President because he was born in Canada.

For background on why Cruz is eligible, you can read my September 3, 2013 post, natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz. But it’s 11,102 words, so it might be easier for you to listen to this audio.

[Perdogg]

There are two ways to be a citizen; by birth and by naturalization.

[Perdogg]

Correction, or not and.

[Godebert]

"There are two ways to be a citizen; by birth and by naturalization."

Incorrect.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

[Theoria]

No I’m series.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

No, he needs to go to prison...as do the Clinton cabal.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

#5 knocks him out.

[X-spurt]

Reading comprehension is your friend.

“Furthermore, McLame was not ineligible.” Double negative get ya?

There is certainly no valid argument claiming Cruz is not NBC.

[AmericanVictory]

That does nothing to elucidate why the phrase “natural born” was chosen for use in the Constitution. Clearly if its framers had wanted to use the phrase “born a citizen” they could have done so. they chose to use the phrase “natural born.” The question, therefore, is what was their intent in choosing that particular phrase? If their intent was as you posit, they could have used the phrase “born a citizen” as more clearly derived from English common law. But they chose a phrase used in the law of nations, which, at the time was taught in the law schools that existed as a separate subject. I don’t think that your simple dichotomy resolves the matter and I don’t believe it is supported by legal precedent or any jurists of note who knew the Framers and their thinking.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“After Precedent Obama, it’s a moot point.”

After Obama, my border collie could run.

[Lurkinanloomin]

And now it’s Jebster’s turn.

I’m not voting for him.

I’d happily vote for Cruz, but The Uniparty will not allow that to happen.

[Perdogg]

and the framers wanted to clarify the term nbC to mean the “Vattel” definition, all they had to do is add the term “born to citizens”.

There is no evidence any where that the Framers wanted the full “Vattel” - None.

[X-spurt]

What’s going on with VA Freepers? You guys suffering from PTSD resulting from having a worst governor that even Minnysoter?

[Lurkinanloomin]

It is shameful to me to have Clinton’s Bag Man as Gov. of Va. e should be in prison, not in the Gov’s mansion.
NOVA (No. VA) is outvoting ROVA (rest of VA) in statewide races. Turning us blue for Presidential races.
If the RNC succeeds in repeating their primary playbook and nominates Jebster, it won’t matter.

[AmericanVictory]

Except what was said by the likes of Marshall and Story, who knew them and are considerably more authoritative than yourself. And there is also the well known letter from John Jay, who was a Framer and who in it expressed a concern that the failure to follow the definition would lead to someone with split loyalties like the man now displaying the same. There is also the circumstantial evidence that a number of them were familiar with Vattel.

[Perdogg]

That is all good and well, but it is not in the constitution.

[AmericanVictory]

The question I believe is what is meant by what is in the Constitution by those who drafted and adopted it. Of course, there are those, including it seems yourself, who maintain that that intent does not matter.

[Godebert]

Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution can interpret themselves, nor is the Declaration the ultimate standard for interpreting the Constitution. The laws of nature and of nature's God are the standard. The Declaration, however, clearly articulates principles of that law and the Constitution reflects the practical interweaving of those principles in its provisions. Without the immutable laws of nature and of nature's God as an interpretive guide, however, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution lose their moral force.

On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the inauguration of George Washington, President John Quincy Adams noted:

"The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government . . . . (yet) even in our own country, there are still philosophers who deny the principles asserted in the Declaration as self-evident truths.

By invoking the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow. The theory of freedom adopted was simply that God's law was supreme and gave freedom. The phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" referred to the laws that God in his capacity as the Creator of the universe had established for the governance of people, nations and nature. These laws are variously described as the laws of Creation, God's Creation laws or as the framers elected to refer to them, as the laws of nature and of nature's God. This body of law, whatever it is called, can be ascertained by people through an examination of God's creation, the text of the Bible, and to a certain degree, instinct or reason.

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

[Godebert]

At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.