Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

I think you are right on the history or usage of the word "citizens." The founders inverted the power pyramid, and "subjects" would have been anathema to them. The subjects became the king, and the king was subservient to the subjects.

While pondering this issue earlier today, I got to wondering if there was some way to better establish that our usage of the word "citizen" derives specifically from Vattel, or does it come from some other source.

On a lark, I decided to see if the word "citizen" was used in any of the law dictionaries in usage in the early 1770s. I found Giles Jacob's law dictionary from the period. A search for the word "citizen" finds nothing listed in it.

Clearly Giles Jacob's law dictionary is not the source of this word.

I looked in Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, Vol 1, 1736), and the word "citizen" does not appear in it anywhere.

I tried to look in Timothy Cunningham. A New and Complete Law-Dictionary, or, General Abridgement of the Law. (1765) But could find no online copy of it.

.

I am thinking that if it can be established that the word "citizen" was relatively obscure, and either wholly or mostly unfamiliar to English Law, then this becomes powerful evidence that the source of that word usage is likely Vattel, and that the very word "citizen" is proof that the Vattel definition was intended to apply.

If it was rarely used in English up to that point, then this strongly implies that it's source must be someplace else.

Quit spamming the thread

Posting the same thing repeatedly does not do anything other than pound the table!

Shouting and pounding the table is the hallmark of zealots AND Lunatics

So Please stop shouting and pounding the table.

Just to be clear

Posting the same thing repeatedly does not do anything other than pound the table!

Shouting and pounding the table is the hallmark of zealots AND Lunatics

So Please stop shouting and pounding the table.

I hope you get the point.

Every time you idiots complain, give me another reason to post the truth.

As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...

As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article

Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

" ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly saysthat Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session; and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes that Congress considers invalid. Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clearthat each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that housemeets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house. Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator. He wins election in his home state. But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old. If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says, the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute. Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate disputeor any other issue of presidential eligibility. Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rulesbut it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution. Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever. They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge. In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

NOTE: nonjusticiable political question

American Constitutional Law Volume 1.

the court will refuse to hear that case.

2

nonjusticiability

the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.

The court will not engage in political disputes.

A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
of a non-legal character
or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.

Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?

"Naturalize" !

naturalized

from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;

naturaliser

from natural.

Naturalizing

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,

wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,

to support the Constitution of the United States,

beyond Sea, or out of the limits

as natural born Citizens:

shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in

except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !

1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

READ IT VERY CLOSELY.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship ... Citizenship is mentioned inArticle 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments. If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath. Natural-born citizen Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday? The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inSection 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" Anyone born inside the United States ** There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision. Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) A final, historical condition:a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example. Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asPuerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive. The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states thatanyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen.Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section. In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized thatbecause McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship. U.S. Nationals A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born. (Continued)

So in your view, Congress has power to (1) make it so that no one is eligible to be the President or (2) make so that anyone is eligible to be the President. It's all totally up to Congress.

(You have an interesting interpretation--I didn't think it went this far.)

I live in Illinois, and like it or not, the law is the law.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Illinois election “laws” concern Illinois and have no standing in any other state - Like it or not.

Please stop repeatedly posting the same thing.

So the TRUTH is becoming 'a nuisance" ?
Where did I read ( ? ):

Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil,and the lusts of your fatherye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning,and abode not in the truth,because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth,ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth,why do ye not believe me?

Read it again, !

1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the in PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE Of
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ? ! ? It list the powers given to the Congress.
The third item on the list IS the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization ... throughout the United States."
Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ?

Can you not READ and COMPREHEND typed writing ?

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !

Have you any knowledge of WHY those changes were made ?
Don't you realize that this changes only CLARIFY the definition given by our Founding Fathers, and do it for the good of our Country ?

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.

... What happened next ... The 1790 act mentioned nothing about the attitudes of new citizens toward government policy in the new democracy. Soon after the 1790 act was passed, however, politics became an important consideration in giving immigrants the right to vote. During the two terms of the nation's first president, George Washington (1732-1799; served 1789-97), two distinct political parties had begun to emerge.... One party, led by Washington's successor, John Adams (1797-1801; served 1797-1801), was known as the Federalists.The Federalist Party included Washington, Adams, and the nation's first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755-1804). The Federalists supported a strong central (federal) government and were generally sympathetic to the interests of merchants in the cities. An opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists (also called the Democratic-Republicans), were led by the country's third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; served 1801-9).The Anti-Federalists opposed giving the federal government more power than was absolutely needed. In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law.The new law required immigrants to wait five years (instead of two) to become a citizen and to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen three years before becoming naturalized. An immigrant who failed to make the declaration might have to wait more than five years after arrival in the United States to become a voter. The 1795 law also required naturalized citizens to renounce any noble titles they might hold (such as "duke" or "countess") and to promise not to be loyal to any foreign king or queen. These measures were intended to ensure that new citizens would not secretly want to restore a king and an aristocracy, or individuals who inherit great wealth and special political privileges. In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again. The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants. To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a lawthat required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote. The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States. At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France. The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France. A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government. After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802). The basic provisions of the original 1790 law were restored except for the period of residency before naturalization.The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795. The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship. In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote. Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization. Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues. They have remained political issues for more than two centuries. ...

$10.

The authority of Congress in this matter is only limited by the Constitution (and amendments). The 14th amendment prohibits Congress from removing jus soli. Note the history of the 14th. It was added to expressly make it difficult for Congress to remove jus soli. As such, the 14th would work against #1.

As for scenario #2, yes. Congress can make it so that anyone is eligible to be President. That is, until, via the amendment process, a limitation is placed on Congress’s authority.

Poster repeatedly posts duplicate posts.

When were they naturalized? // After their parents filled out the consular form and the Consulate or State Department confirmed they met the requirements to be awarded US citizenship.

That is not naturalization. The law clearly states that they are citizens at birth and defines naturalization as "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth."

The certificate is even called "Consular Report of a Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America." (I have two of them in my fireproof box at home.) It doesn't confer citizenship, it documents the citizenship that existed from birth.

No. Man up. $20.

You deny the truth, so I repost it AS PROOF !

FACT:

according to the law at that time

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986? The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law: When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,with five of the years after the age of 14. ... While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,amendments since 1952 HAVE ELIMINATED THESE REQUIREMENTS. When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK". They married, moved to Calgary, Alberta, and in late 1970 had their first and only child, Rafael Edward Cruz. Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz. Cruz's mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent. Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School (1952) in the U.S., as well as Rice University (1956),so clearly she meets the residency requirements. Source In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas. Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana. "Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream." Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born. His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out. He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen. The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry. "I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen." The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 —48 years after leaving Cuba. Why did he take so long to do it?"I don't know. I guess laziness, or — I don't know," he says.

So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
AND HOW

Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

Read Montesquieu's 1748 De l'esprit des lois (Spirit of the Laws).

Or Samuel von Pufendorf's 1673 De officio hominis et civis juxta legem naturalem libri duo (On The Duty of Man and Citizen According to the Natural Law Two Books)

"The duration of the citizens' particular duty is, so long as they fill the office from which the duty springs; and when they leave the same, the latter too expires. In the same way the general duty lasts as long as they are citizens. But they cease to be citizens, if they leave with the express or tacit consent of the state, and fix the abiding-place of their fortunes elsewhere; or if for some crime they are exiled and deprived of the right of citizenship; or if they have been overpowered by the enemy, and compelled to submit to the rule of the victor."

Here is Cunningham's dicitionary

https://archive.org/stream/newcompletelawdi01cunn#page/n504/mode/1up

BTW, During the debates over the 1795 Naturalization Act, Congressman Giles proposed an amendment that would require immigrants with titles of nobility to renounce the title before becoming naturalized as an U.S. citizen. Mr Hillhouse of Connecticut believing the amendment did not go far enough and proposed the following hypothetical case;

"If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted." Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795 page 1046

How can a nobleman come to the United States, not become a citizen but have children who are natural born citizens?

In Rogers v. Bellei (1971) the SCOTUS already has held that Bellei (who is an exact birth proxy to Ted Cruz) is merely a statutory born citizen (and, thus, cannot be a natural born Citizen).

Mr. Bellei was born and lived the first few years of his life as an American citizen identically situated to Ted Cruz (foreign born, foreign resident, alien father, expat mother). As an adult, Bellei had his citizenship forcible stripped for not meeting USA residency requirements. This could only occur if Mr. Bellei was not a natural born Citizen (in fact, he was just a mere born citizen).

Note that citizenship can only be removed at one's behest AND only if confirmed twice AND only with the required forms to renounce it AND only by providing proof that one will not be left stateless. Bellei did none of those. He did not give his citizenship up voluntarily (indeed he went to court to retain it). The fact that the government could take it away in spite of all that proves that he was not born a natural born Citizen.

Bellei sued the government in order to retain the USA citizenship he was born with, but the SCOTUS upheld the original decision with the dissent noting that he was not even protected under the penumbra of the 14th Amendment. The key point here is that Cruz and Bellei were of exactly the same citizenship status at birth, therefore Cruz is also not a natural born Citizen (a status which is solely and entirely determined at the moment of birth).

Bellei is an exact proxy for Cruz. And the SCOTUS unequivocally held that Bellei was merely a born citizen, thereby excluding any possibility that he be a natural born Citizen. It's game over for Cruz because Trump has the standing to bring this to the court's attention. Do you really think he won't if it comes to that?

Also note that without the change in naturalization law passed in 1934 allowing female citizens to pass on derivative citizenship to their children born outside the USA, Ted Cruz would not be a citizen at all. He is a statutory born citizen, not a natural born Citizen as the Constitution demands of presidents.

Derivative born citizenship is statutory citizenship granted by congress. It is a conditional man-made privilege, not a natural right like natural born Citizenship and, thus, may be revoked as in the case of Bellei. Only if it has been perfected by naturalization does it fall under the protective penumbra of the Fourteenth Amendment and become irrevocable (but still not natural).

Even though Ted Cruz's citizenship was perfected when his mother later (probably) filed a CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad) for her son, he still was born under the exact same circumstances as Mr. Bellei, so Cruz was even less than naturalized at birth (just like Mr. Bellei). There is no way Ted Cruz can be a natural born Citizen because that status is irrevocable and Mr. Bellei (same status as Cruz) actually ended up having his citizenship taken away from him against his will. This proves that neither Bellei nor Cruz were born as natural born Citizens.

The Constitution's presidential eligibility requirements have never changed and cannot be changed by mere act of congress (only by amendment). Cruz's birth circumstances are the same as Bellei's and Bellei's birth citizenship status was so tenuous as to be later removed altogether. A true natural born Citizen can never have citizenship removed -- even for high treason. This point is worth repeating until it fully sinks in.

Ted Cruz knows he is not eligible, yet he continues to accept campaign donations. That is fraud. You cannot support this man and support the Constitution.

"that can't decide whether he's ronald reagan or Huey Long"

Great. May I borrow it for a tagline?

Cruz may not have a CRBA and he would not need one to obtain a U.S. passport.

Foreign Birth Documents + Parent(s) Citizenship Evidence

If you claim citizenship through birth abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s), but cannot submit a Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth, you must submit all of the following:

Your foreign birth certificate (translated to English),

Evidence of citizenship of your U.S. citizen parent,

Your parentsâ€™ marriage certificate, and

A statement of your U.S. citizen parent detailing all periods and places of residence or physical presence in the United States and abroad before your birth.

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/passports/information/secondary-evidence.html