Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
“It doesn’t say they ARE natural born citizens... /
And that is a distinction which I noticed in his post as well.”
Actually, the point was that a ratifying legislature used NBS & NBC interchangeably during the time the Constitution was written, and during the time when they voted to ratify the Constitution. That doesn’t leave much doubt but that NBS = NBC.
Of course, comprehending a point that extends over several sentences is something birthers are not good at - as I’ve said before: If birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers.
I never said they weren't.
If birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers.
Puerile statements are both insulting and demeaning to civil discourse.
“Puerile statements are both insulting and demeaning to civil discourse.”
Birthers spend half of the threads calling others trolls, and YOU want ME to worry about my “puerile” comments?
Are YOU responsible for what everyone who agrees with you says to someone who doesn't?. No?
Guess what?
Neither am I.
“I cannot grasp why he thinks those quotes are relevant to discussion.”
The Massachusetts legislature uses the term “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably from 1785 through 1791.
Remember what Justice Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller,
“...we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”
So what would the ordinary citizen of Massachusetts understand the term “natural born citizen” to mean?
The same as they understood the term “natural born subject” to mean?
Here is what Blackstone said about natural born subjects,
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”
And what Zephaniah Swift said was the law of Connecticut,
“The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
And what William Rawle said,
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
Of course you are. Whether you recognize it or not.
The great joke here is that if a person actually understands the history and law, it is completely obvious that your whole theory goes dead-set against both the history and the laws of the United States.
And yet you make these solemn pronouncements of what you think the law is, and act as if you know, and as if you're an expert, and it's all a complete fairy tale.
It is downright FUNNY. It is FUNNY to watch you act as if you think you're an expert in Constitutional law, when your entire theory is the most enormous load of horse manure.
And it's equally funny to watch you defend that load of horse manure to the death, apparently believing sincerely that it's a pile of "brown gold."
Let's take just one small example here.
I've produced a list of quotes of what the very best early authorities in America thought natural born citizenship was all about. Last I counted, I had more than 30 of those quotes.
Now there are a FEW of those quotes (although it's a small minority) that one could say probably reflect less of the expert legal opinion, and more of the popular understanding of what "natural born citizen" meant.
That, by the way, is NOT an irrelevant "argumentum ad populum" or "appeal to public opinion."
Another funny thing here is that you appear too damn stupid to understand that it's not really possible to have an "appeal to public opinion" fallacy when the topic of what you're discussing is THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A PHRASE MEANT.
Which, to some fair degree, is the case here. Now I haven't majored on what the public understanding was. But the public understanding of what natural born citizen meant is entirely relevant to the discussion for one simple reason.
The Framers weren't writing a document intended primarily for lawyers. They were writing a document THAT THEY INTENDED THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.
So is what ordinary people would have understood "natural born citizen" to mean relevant? Of course it is.
Or do you, in seeking to defend your pile of "brown gold," now claim that the Framers of the Constitution, in establishing a new government in which the People rule, intended to write a document that could only be understood by lawyers and Swiss philosophers?
If you make such a claim, it's idiotic. Whether you recognize it or not.
In any event, as noted, the vast majority of my list of quotes comes from the BEST EXPERTS AND TOP AUTHORITIES in the early United States.
And the people on that list are all pretty much unanimous in their opinions. They are perhaps most clearly represented by William Rawle, an absolute legal expert, a literal COLLEAGUE of two of our very most important Framers, and the man who founded our nation's oldest existing law firm. But others, such as Chancellor Sandford, are quite equally adamant.
Against this enormous lineup of REAL, WORLD-CLASS AUTHORITY, you are able to produce ONE GUY, who was not a lawyer at all, and whose theories on citizenship were SMACKED DOWN by the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION and virtually every other one of our early leaders who heard and evaluated them.
THIRTY-FREAKING-SIX TO ONE.
And yet here you are, the "expert" who bandies about the Latin names of logical fallacies while clearly not understanding them, brandishing the utterly discredited little paper from David Ramsay as if it were a pronouncement from God, while baldly asserting that the entire weight of early American legal opinion doesn't mean jack.
It is really too funny.
Wow. What a timely post.
DL has accused me of "argumentum ad populum." As I just pointed out (see post 1466, which I think you will find interesting), such an accusation is just silly.
And you have brought the actual authority of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT to that point.
So me where I said they didn't.
-----
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
Rawle ALSO said;
Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere.
William Rawle
How do you think the States could keep track of all that? Oh yeah!
He's talking about REGISTERED resident aliens.... you know - People who filled out paperwork acknowledging their Residency here which implied their Intent to stay.
Not someone who ran across the border and squatted or overstayed a Visa.
Of course you are. Madison acknowledged both jus soli and jus sanguinis, but said that when one was talking about citizenship, jus soli was WHAT APPLIED IN THE UNITED STATES.
In other words, he quite explicitly said that OUR NATION HAD ADOPTED THE BASIC JUS SOLI RULE FOR CITIZENSHIP.
This was an entirely explicit statement on his part. ANd you just brush it off as if it were nothing.
And this is just wrong. Justice Marshall clearly stated the principle in "The Venus", and Justice Waite clearly stated the exact same principle in "Minor v Happersett." You just don't like these cases, so you refuse to acknowledge them.
I've never refused to acknowledge either.
The Venus was clearly about DOMICILE, not citizenship, and certainly not natural born citizenship.
AND DOMICILE IS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH VATTEL WAS QUOTED IN THAT CASE.
So you take a case in which Marshall produced a passage from Vattel because he found Vattel's opinion ON DOMICILE relevant. And you extrapolate from that, that Marshall must have also found Vattel's supposed opinion on citizenship relevant.
But Marshall himself NEVER QUOTED THE PASSAGE BECAUSE HE AGREED WITH VATTEL ON CITIZENSHIP, OR EVEN FOUND THAT OPINION RELEVANT.
In fact, Justice Marshall was a bit careless in this instance, because he used a badly-translated version of Vattel that silly birthers could pull up nearly 200 years later, to justify a pile of horse manure that Marshall himself almost certainly would have TOLD you was horse manure.
As for Minor v. Happersett, it doesn't matter how many times rational people point out: 1) the 2 or 3 sentences you quote were the very definition of "dicta," 2) they never said children of aliens weren't natural born citizens anyway, they said they didn't know and frankly didn't care, and 3) it would have all been overruled by Wong Kim Ark anyway.
Legally speaking, this is a piece of tissue paper. It is literally difficult to imagine a case with any less substance to it.
And as noted a few days ago by another poster here, AT LEAST ONE JUDGE HAS SPECIFICALLY RULED THAT THE CLAIM IS A PILE OF HORSE****.
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon:
“Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
So you've even had at least one official judge tell you your pile of horse manure from Minor is horse manure.
That won't stop you, of course. Because you've got a wagon-load of Brown Gold.
Yeee-ha, boys! We got us some BROWN GOLD!!
“And you extrapolate from that, that Marshall must have also found Vattel’s supposed opinion on citizenship relevant.”
Since we are extrapolating how about we extrapolate this:
“The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.”
“As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.” Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833
So you agree that Governor Jindal and Senators Rubio and Santorum are natural born citizens because their parents didn’t run “across the border and squatted or overstayed a Visa.”
Yes, I agree. The Frank Marshall Davis theory is certainly as good as any of the other theories being discussed.
I can just picture the Supreme Court trying to sort all this out:
The Chief Justice: Well, based on the only evidence available, I think we have to find that he was probably born in Hawaii, but depending on how we define "natural born citizen," the father's citizenship might be relevant. What do you think, Justice Breyer?
Justice Breyer:. I think he looks like Obama, Sr. Same name, too.
The Chief Justice: Justice Kagan?
Justice Kagan: Based on the pictures, I gotta go with that Davis guy. Call it my woman's intuition, if you want, but Davis is the dad.
The Chief Justice: Justice Kennedy?
Justice Kennedy:. Well, you know, honestly, they all look alike to me.
The Chief Justice: Justice Thomas, what say you?
Justice Thomas:. Geez, who knows?. Don't we have any more donuts?
Please show me the legal trail all the way from your original statement concerning Rawle to the laws governing the residency papers of the parents of Jindal and Rubio WITHOUT the type of citizen changing from natural born citizen to 'citizen of the United States'......
and I'll consider it.
-----
BTW - You're skipping past a big chunk of American Law to use the jurist THIRD in line and the one most saturated in pure English Law.
There are differences, you know.
That’s amazing. The fact that some were creating “natural born citizens” makes you wonder how crystal clear all this might have been back then.
So you just ignore the point. Yup. Figured as much.
You simply cannot respond intelligently to the fact that Justice Waite specifically says that natural born citizenship isn't defined by the 14th amendment.
It doesn't leave much doubt that they are the closest analogous terms from one Political Philosophy (Monarchy) to a Different Political Philosophy which doesn't recognize the term "Subject." (Free Republic.)
The distinction is to subtle for you to grasp, I think. It isn't the mindless equating of one thing with another.
As this is the transition period from Monarchy to Free Republic, it is not even noteworthy that they were transitioning terms as well. Natural born Subject, and Natural born citizen are the closes analogous terms between the very different forms of government, but the requirements of the one was very different for the requirements of the other. The principle of someone claiming ownership or you merely because you were born on their Land, is incompatible with the foundation of American Government. Our Federal existence is based on Natural Law, not the enforced servitude to a King.
“Justice Waite specifically says that natural born citizenship isn’t defined by the 14th amendment”
And he was correct. It was defined by English common law at the time of Independence. That was the language of the law then.
The legal trail starts in 1527 when John Rastell wrote:
"Alyon is he of whome the fader is born and he hymselfe also borne out of the elegiance of our lord the kyng, but yf an alyon come and dwell in England whyche is not of the kynges enemyes and here ad issu this issu is not alion but englysh, also if an englysh man go over the see with the kyngs lycence and ther ad issu this isu is not alyon.”
Through Chief Justice Coke in 1608:
"Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joined with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, and the indictment concluded (f) contraligeant’ suæ debitum, for he owed to the King local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which local obedience being but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject; a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it hath been said, is alia ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject”
Through the 1732 Chart of Georgia:
"Also we do, for ourselves and successors, declare, by these presents, that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province, and every of their children and posterity, shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects, within any of our dominions, to all intents and purposes, as if abiding and born within this our kingdom of Great-Britain, or any other of our dominions"
And continues through Justice William Blackstone:
"The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”
Through the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress.:
Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.
Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.
Through the Massachusetts Acts of Naturalization that say the "natural born citizen" is the same as "natural born subject".
Through the words of James Madison,
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
And throught the words of Zephaniah Swift,
"The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Through Rawle,
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
Through Justice Gray in Wong Kim ArK,
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”
“The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides”
Through Chief Justice Taft in Ex Parte Grossman:
“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.”
Through the following:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: "Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency"
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Voeltz v. Obama (Voeltz I) (Florida 2012) ruling: "However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.",
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, ...(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, ...(1874), does not hold otherwise"
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."
Voeltz v. Obama (Voeltz II) (Florida 2012), "In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born within the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section I purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649"
Fair v. Obama (Maryland, 2012) ruling, “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the prior United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [Wong Kim Ark], and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. …this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama."
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.