Official Notice of Dispute challenges 4 candidates' NH eligibility (Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, Santorum)

The Post & Email ^ | 11/13/2015 | Robert Laity

[ScottWalkerForPresident2016]

I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a "Natural-Born Citizen" in order to be President under Article II, Sec. 1.

I am disputing the bona-fides of:

Marco Rubio - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S., however his parents were un-naturalized "permanent resident" Cuban citizens when he was born.

Ted Cruz - NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother who may have natualized as a Canadian.

Bobby Jindal - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to parents who were un-naturalized citizens of Indiaa at the time of Bobby Jindal's bitth.

Rick Santorum - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick Santorum's birth.

[Mr Rogers]

“ideas which are just too old fashioned to keep around.”

Vattel had that idea, for SWISS law. The Founders showed no sign of sharing it.

[DoodleDawg]

This is when I usually post my boilerplate of Thomas Paine when he wrote in 1791 about "foreigners" and "half a foreigner" not being eligible to be President. I posit that "half a foreigner" is a person with one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent.

Except that he doesn't say that. The "foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner" that Paine speaks of is an obvious reference the the British monarchy. The only time he links the presidency with citizenship is when he writes, "The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king."

[DiogenesLamp]

You mean you don't know?

I know very well, but i'm not the one that needs educating on this subject.

I find that hard to believe considering you credit the Declaration of Independence with everything.

In terms of importance, the Declaration of Independence is pretty far up there. It is the mother of the Constitution.

It also, more or less, caused the civil war.

[DiogenesLamp]

Vattel had that idea, for SWISS law. The Founders showed no sign of sharing it.

Au contraire, mon frere. The word "citizen" was little used prior to Vattel. If you search Shakespeare for it, you find all it's references are to the inhabitants of a city. "City-Zens", as in the manner of "Denizens."

Blackstone also refers to it as the inhabitants of a city.

But Vattel used it to refer to the inhabitants of a nation, and that is whence came our modern usage of the word.

Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."

Jefferson made a conscious effort to differentiate the inhabitants of our nation from their previous status as English Subjects. His own notes on the Declaration are filled with references to Vattel.

Even the kook burgers over at Dr. Conspiracy admit the Declaration is heavily based on Vattel.

And that is the document that created natural born citizens.

[DiogenesLamp]

So basically Judge Carter is an @$$hole that needs to be tossed off the bench. It would seem we have this problem with a lot of Federal Judges nowadays.

I think Cruz has the right Idea. Make these bastards stand for election every six years. We can get rid of the really stupid ones pretty quickly after that.

[Mr Rogers]

“The word “citizen” was little used prior to Vattel.”

That is OK. Vattel did not use it either. Not in the sense of NBC, since he wrote “Les Naturels ou indigenes...”

That would be “The natives or indigenes [indigenous people]” - which is how it appeared in US & English translations at the time the US Constitution was written. The natives or indigenous people are those born to citizen parents.

Notice “indigenes” is a French word taken into English, and it appears in English dictionaries even today.

[DiogenesLamp]

He wrote: Des citoyens et naturels as the title to that section.

But we don't have to guess about this. The Constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787, and the legal community of Philadelphia knows best what it meant by the reference to "natural citizen."

In one of the most prominent law books in Pennsylvania, and one which was based on the work by their Supreme Court, they explicitly say the American understanding is based on Vattel, and not on English Common law.

What subsequently confused the nation was the efforts of people like Rawle to assert our citizenship was based on English common law in his misguided efforts to apply this legal doctrine to the issue of slavery.

He deliberately pushed the English law claim while knowing full well it had been rejected by all of his peers in the legal community of Philadelphia. It was in fact, rejected by the Pennsylvania supreme court in a case he brought for the purpose of freeing a slave, and in which he collaborated with William Lewis, the man Solely responsible for the legal education of Samuel Roberts, the man who compiled the above mentioned book.

Rawle was a deliberate liar on this point. He wasn't mistaken. He had been fully informed of the truth, and deliberately misled people about it.

[Mr Rogers]

“Rawle was a deliberate liar on this point. He wasn’t mistaken.”

Actually, he was an expert in the law. The folks writing your pamphlet were not. And we KNOW the ratifying states considered a natural born subject and a natural born citizen to be equivalent terms, because they used them interchangeably in their laws:

In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”

In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

Notice - sometimes they used NBC, and sometimes they used NBS. Didn’t matter to them which. And since that legislature is one of the RATIFIERS of the Constitution, we KNOW the original intent - and Rawle was right and YOU are wrong.

[Political Junkie Too]

He makes the comparison to imply that we are the opposite. You conveniently stopped short of the next sentence "In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country..."

In context, it is clear that Paine is juxtaposing the open British monarchy with the closed American executive, "open" meaning accessible to "foreigners" and "half a foreigner," where the American executive is closed to both. One cannot be in "full natural... connection with the country" if one parent is not a citizen.

-PJ

[Nero Germanicus]

Judge David O. Carter is a United States Marine Lieutenant who won the Bronze Star wth the “V” device for Valor and two Purple Hearts at the Battle of Khe Sahn in Vietnam.
He is known to be a man of integrity and honor.

Ted Cruz is among those who have confirmed 115 Obama nomnated federal judges unanimously. Another 38 Obama judges were confirmed by unanimous consent and an additional 63 Obama judges were confirmed on a voice vote. That’s 216 Obama judges who the Senate confirmed without opposition.

96 more Obama judges were challenged in the Senate but were confirmed on roll call votes. sx Obama nominees have been rejected.

Amending the Constitution to provide for election of Judges may well prove to be an extremely difficult task to achieve. There are too many blue states.

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually, he was an expert in the law. The folks writing your pamphlet were not.

It isn't a pamphlet. It was a law book based on the work of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in eliminating English laws which were incompatible with United States law, and meant for every Pennsylvania court. The book was entitled:

A Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court, Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force, in Pennsylvania

It was so widely used at the time, that they produced a second edition in 1847.

The "folks" writing that report were the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, some of which were DELEGATES to the Pennsylvania US Constitution ratifying convention.

In terms of actual legal knowledge of the intent of the writers of the US Constitution, again, which took place in Philadelphia, they greatly outrank Rawle, who is in comparison, an amateur.

Rawle was the British trained son of the British governor of New York, who set up a law practice in Philadelphia after the war was over. He was not a delegate to either the original constitutional convention, or any subsequent state ratifying convention.

His opinions hold no actual weight other than that obtained by osmosis from having been near people who actually participated in such events.

Rawle pushed his "British Law" theory because it was the only one which would justify freeing the slaves. The Natural law principles articulated by Vattel were useless to this task, and Rawle more or less devoted the last thirty years of his life to the cause of abolition.

His deliberate lie was intended to work mass abolition because his argument that slaves were born citizens of the United States precluded their captivity.

No one agreed with his argument at the time, and he lost all the cases he filed for such purposes. All he did was taint the history and subsequent understanding of what this section of American law was actually based upon.

This situation was not changed until the 14th amendment came along and actually granted such a condition to slaves as Rawle had argued they had all along.

Again, if Rawle's theory were correct, the 14th amendment would have been unnecessary, because slaves would already have been citizens. The fact that we had to create the 14th amendment proves Rawle was in fact, WRONG. Our system was NOT based on British common law, else we wouldn't have had to add the 14th amendment to make it work like that.

[DiogenesLamp]

He is known to be a man of integrity and honor.

But none of that is proof against ignorance and group think. Carter is simply wrong, and is also so stubborn as to refuse to consider the possibility that he was taught incorrectly.

[Mr Rogers]

The legislature that RATIFIED the Constitution knew what they meant by NBC - and they meant the equivalent of “natural born subject”. We know this because they used the terms interchangeably. And NBS comes from...yeah, ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

“In terms of actual legal knowledge of the intent of the writers of the US Constitution, again, which took place in Philadelphia, they greatly outrank Rawle, who is in comparison, an amateur.”

There is no better way to know the intent than to look at how the folks who RATIFIED the Constitution used the words. And they agreed with Rawle. Not with your pamphlet.

[DiogenesLamp]

The legislature that RATIFIED the Constitution knew what they meant by NBC - and they meant the equivalent of “natural born subject”. We know this because they used the terms interchangeably. And NBS comes from...yeah, ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

They meant the analogy of "natural born subject" because subjects were not permitted to expatriate themselves.

I am starting to remember why I didn't used to bother responding to you. You ignore anything that is presented, and you repeat yourself a lot. Especially the stuff which doesn't actually prove anything useful.

There is no better way to know the intent than to look at how the folks who RATIFIED the Constitution used the words. And they agreed with Rawle. Not with your pamphlet.

And you do things like referring to a major LAW BOOK based on the work of an Entire Supreme Court as a "pamphlet."

And no, they did not agree with Rawle. Franklin and Wilson both have written positions in very strong opposition to those of Rawle.

[DiogenesLamp]

See? It's a book.

[DoodleDawg]

In context, it is clear that Paine is juxtaposing the open British monarchy with the closed American executive, "open" meaning accessible to "foreigners" and "half a foreigner," where the American executive is closed to both. One cannot be in "full natural... connection with the country" if one parent is not a citizen.

Clear as mud. Paine only says that the President is never a foreigner. Not a half-foreigner, a foreigner. And nobody disputes that. The President is a natural born citizen and not foreign born.

[Political Junkie Too]

Nonsense. Paine is clearly comparing and contrasting the Presidency with the Monarchy.

Your attempt to sow doubt as to what I can clearly read is futile. I admit that there is strong evidence on the other side, but if your goal is perfect refutation of all opposing views (the liberal MO, BTW) then give it up. Just chalk this one point up for Paine, and move on.

-PJ

[DoodleDawg]

Your attempt to sow doubt as to what I can clearly read is futile.

I know I'm not going to sow any doubt in you. My point is that I can also read Thomas Paine and I can come to my own conclusions on what he meant. And that I'm not prepared to accept your interpretation just because you say so.

And I'm still waiting for someone to point to where the "laws of nature and of nature's God" are listed so I can read the definition it gives for natural-born citizen. I guess I'll be waiting in vain.

[Yosemitest]

Because the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" are spending millions of dollars hiring anyone they can to attack Ted Cruz !
These TROLLS know the truth, yet they keep on posting lies, under the theory

If you tell the lie, long enough, and loud enough,
people will believe the lie, and shun the truth .

[GregNH]

How disingenuous can you be?

The sun warms our planet and we can witness that when our portion of the planet faces the sun. "Does the sun come up everyday?"Naturally!-DoodleDawg-Where is that written?

"Does a bear shit in the woods.?"Naturally!-DoodleDawg-Where is that written?

"Does Monday follow Sunday?"Naturally!-DoodleDawg-Where is that written?

"Is a child born in the US to parents who are US citizens become a US citizen?"Naturally!-DoodleDawg-Where is that written?