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.
“The 14th ammendment had nothing to do with the natural born citizen definition. It was soley aimed at defining all of the former slaves as citizens.”
Incorrect. It had everything to do with the natural born definition. It provided citizenship not just to the slaves, but to everyone who had been born outside America, in territory that had just become American (in Guadaloupe Hildago or in the Louisiana Purchase, to the Native Americans, etc.
The 14th made all of these groups and established the principle for the first time that all those who were born in America were considered to be citizens.
There was no US common law in 1787 which would define the meaning of legal terms as understood in 1787. It was ENGLISH common law that formed the language of the law.
“They couldn’t have foreseen the rise in transportation technology that made such a thing possible. But the proper response to such a situation is to amend the Constitution, not pretend that it says something it does not.”
Given that they grandfathered themselves, it is significant that they did not write the constitution to bar this from happening.
That's fine, thank you for the information.
No, it FLAT OUT ISN'T.
In the crystal-clear words of EARLY LEGAL EXPERT William Rawle, who was a member, together with GEORGE WASHINGTON, of the "Society for Political Inquiries," which met AT BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S HOUSE:
"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."
Birthers who claim otherwise are spitting in the face of William Rawle and the Founders and Framers that he was friends with. And it is time that real Patriots stopped tolerating this nonsense.
Not true. There were plenty of Black Citizens during the founding era. Crispus Attucks was one of the first Casualties of the American War of Independence. There were many others black patriots. Take a look.
http://www.fold3.com/page/747_african_american_patriots_of_the/
You can’t mock the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, while pushing your definition of “natural born citizen” supposedly from the Framers of the Constitution.
Non Sequitur.
Don't be like them. Try a different approach, Bob.
All the legal research of which you've heard. There is plenty of legal research that contradicts the common wisdom.
Here's a little piece for you to look at.
"Except the children of transient aliens"? How did that get in there? (I actually know how it got in there. :) )
Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.
http://books.google.com/books?id=l3w4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q&f=false
If Cruz is eligible, how is Aldo Mario Bellei not? They share the exact circumstances of birth, yet Aldo Mario Bellei was stripped of citizenship.
I cannot imagine a natural born citizen being stripped of his citizenship for failing to meet residency requirements. Can you?
I have seen over and over a distinction made in period writings. So, just WHEN was common law integrated into American law, and just WHEN did we cease using English law? According to you?
No. They absolutely have not.
You can do a google books search on "natural born citizen" and turn up literally HUNDREDS of historical quotes that support the definition I and folks like Mr Rogers have given. The same search turns up virtually nothing to indicate anyone of any real authority ever relied on Vattel.
The Vattel claim is ABSOLUTE, FLAT-OUT NONSENSE. It's simply false. There is no evidence to support it.
It is NOT "merely pinin' for the fjords." It's passed on. It is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker.
It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If a bunch of silly birthers hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies.
Its processes are now 'istory. It's off the twig.
It's kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible.
It is an EX-claim.
“Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The 14th Ammendment as I stated before was passed during reconstruction and its main emphasis was to include former slaves and people who had been in territories that were now part of the uS etc. It deliberately does not address “natural born citizen” as this is a separate issue and is specifically applicable to holding the office of the President of the United States. The 14th ammendment had nothing to do with that.
I don't agree with your chart, and don't agree that it represents the Founding Generation's understanding of the term, Natural Born Citizen. Your chart shows a weak and imperfect form of citizenship -- one which the Framers would not have held up as the unimpeachable standard for the office of President.
The chart I posted represents the purest form of citizenship achievable -- the one that the Framers insisted upon, as the bar for the office of US President.
Use the keyword, "NBC", and read the multitudes of threads posted here, which back up my assertion.
You're welcome. I haven't posted it in a while, since the birther controversy died down.
If that were the case, the amendment would have said “all persons previously held in the condition of slavery or involuntary servitude are citizens...” ( the same terms used in the 13th Amendment)
The 14th Amendment says: “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.”
Since 1868, it has applied to everyone. The landmark Supreme Court ruling on citizenship interpreting the 14th Amendment concerned a person of Chinese ethnicity who had two parents who were subjects of the Emperor of China but had a child born in the US who was ruled to be a Citizen at Birth.
Due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, he could not become a naturalized citizen in 1898.
It is disgraceful for the same reason it would be disgraceful for a conservative to refuse to vote for Ted Cruz, and instead help elect some idiot liberal like Obama, on the claim that "Ted Cruz is Hispanic, and as a Hispanic he is Constitutionally ineligible to be President."
Because both claims are false.
No, but you are doing everything possible to twist it.
If I wanted to lose an election to prove the notion of "divided we fall" then I would choose someone who will divide.
Look, that's been a SOP for the GOPe and presidential elections for how many decades now? I don't expect you to change what's working so well because of anything history, human nature or I might tell you.
Please, carry on and insult my patriotism and intelligence as you feel necessary. I've learned a lot about what's really going on here and who's in charge since Barry Oh put the fear in me and as such, I forgive you your trespasses against me.
William Rawle, wasn't he that London trained son of the British Loyalist Mayor of Philadelphia during the Revolutionary war?
Do you mean to tell me that a guy who was on the OTHER SIDE during the war, and trained in British Law might have a BRITISH understanding of the Law? Heaven forfend!
Yeah, you'll have to do better than that. I would be embarrassed to base my argument on a British trained Son of British Loyalist who was on the other side during the War of Independence.
As you know, two Supreme Court Justices (Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Washington) absolutely crush Rawle's allegations in the case of:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
Supreme Court Justice Washington:
1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers" and the latter "subjects," and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.
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.