Yes, they fully supported THIS:
Who would have thought the founders were such idiots? Jeff Winston, obviously.
Birth Tourism Jeffy baby! It's baked into the cake!
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.
Yes. It's not hard.
All you have to do is accept that citizenship in the United States was defined a good deal like it was in our mother country, England, and that "natural born citizen" really means "citizen at or by birth."
There is some indication that while the status of persons born on the soil (of both England and America) was never subject to any control of the legislature, it was different with those born to citizens abroad.
By this understanding, Congress has the authority to define who is and is not a citizen by birth (or a "natural born citizen") in the sole case of those born to American citizens abroad.
It's not that hard.
And you will have to get me his opinion on Aldo Mario Bellei, soonest. No doubt he will immediately see the glaring distinction between Bellei and Cruz.
Yes, they fully supported THIS:
Who would have thought the founders were such idiots? Jeff Winston, obviously.
Birth Tourism Jeffy baby! It's baked into the cake!
Big whoop. You might as well reference the antecedent to his ‘therefore’, which is simply that those who are citizens of the individual states in the United States are also citizens of the United States.
He’s really no expert or even acknowledging of the concept of natural born citizen as otherwise documented and understood at the time.
IMO your argument has de facto won since Obama took office and the stricter definition is never going to be enforced. But I’m in no way convinced that that’s what the framers meant and it is disingenuous to simply pretend that the stricter definition didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was written.
Also, I am probably closer to being a Cruz Republican than any other type of Republican I can name by an individual.
No, you are mocked for making up your mind before you heard both sides of the conversation. You SHOULD be mocked for that.
The article says his father is a US citizen. His mother was a born US citizen.
Now, if US citizens have children while gainfully employed overseas, we have a legal dilemma that I think was solved by Congress some time ago. AS you realize from the Constitution itself, the laws passed by Congress along with the Constitution are considered by the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. Therefore, citizenship laws are within the constitutional authority of the Congress, something that should be the obvious intent of the founders, since the first citizenship law was in about 1790, well within the lives of the founders themselves.
INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(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;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899
Every time I see anything from you, I feel stupider having read it.
Again, you make my point for me. Toleration of dissent is a hallmark of American thought. And yet you come here trying to shut us up and shout us down.
What about the fact that he was not born in America and is a naturalized American citizen?
Go play with your crayons or something.
There wasn’t one date when we suddenly switched to all USA common law. Even now, in an obscure matter, one might cite an English court case from before the Constitution...as WKA did at length, as here:
“This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell’s State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co.Lit. 8a, 128b, Lord Hale, in Hargrave’s Law Tracts, 210, an in 1 Hale P.C. 61, 62; 1 Bl.Com. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl.Com. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, p. 173-177, 741.
In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: “The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from...”
Again, for the purposes of this argument, what is important is this:
“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/124/465/case.html
“people who had been in territories that were now part of the US”
What it does is make those born in territories now part of the US, not naturalized citizens, but natural born citizens, retroactively. This is the privileges and immunities clause extended to these groups of people who heretofor had an uncertain status.
And what are you going to do when one of us "Birthers" invoke Rogers v Bellei? What is you answer to that?
Start talking.
And this is the reason that Levin, Rush and Erickson won't touch it. All someone has to do is allege those guys are supporting Dred Scott v Sanford, and they will be a greasy spot from an advertising perspective.
Had this guy not been considered black, We wouldn't have half the people so terrified of this issue. Because he's black, people dare not touch it for fear of recalling an ugly past in our history.
Which isn't the same thing as being incorrect. Prior to Dred Scott v Sanford, the views were pretty universal. They were still wrong though.
Ping for later
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!
Your vicious and unjustified attack on William Rawle is a clear sign of your corrupt, no-holds-barred attachment to your completely false birther theory.
Yes, Rawle had a British Loyalist stepfather, and the same article you cited noted that Rawle himself felt a "sense of humiliation over his family's British sympathies."
So for you to claim, falsely, that Rawle "was on the OTHER SIDE during the war" is flat-out despicable.
Incidentally, the same article notes that Rawle only spent a total of two years studying in England AND traveling through Europe. I can imagine the latter probably took up at least half of that.
All of which was well before he sat WITH BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND GEORGE WASHINGTON at Franklin's house.
You also neglected to mention that Rawle was appointed BY GEORGE WASHINGTON in 1791 as U.S. District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania.
Finally, we can note that not only was Rawle's statement about the children of aliens CRYSTAL clear, NOBODY EVER CONTESTED IT. Nobody ever said that Rawle was wrong. On the contrary, his quote was later referenced as authority by the United States Supreme Court.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/
Ah yes...a case involving INTERNATIONAL LAW, not US citizenship law, where it was detrmined:
“If a citizen of the United States establishes his domicile in a foreign country between which and the United States hostilities afterwards break out, any property shipped by such citizen before knowledge of the war and captured by an American cruiser after the declaration of war must be condemned as lawful prize.”
This was hardly a case about US citizenship...indeed:
“Maitland, McGregor and Jones were native British subjects, who came to the United States many years prior to the present war, and, after the regular period of residence, were admitted to the rights of naturalization. Sometime after this, but long prior to the declaration of war, they returned to Great Britain, settled themselves there, and engaged in the trade of that country, where they were found carrying on their commercial business at the time these shipments were made and at the time of the capture.”
Well, it's refreshing to hear you at least admit that "your argument has de facto won."
However, if you had done enough reading, you would understand that "my" argument isn't my argument because I picked an argument I liked. I chose "my" argument because it was the only one backed by both history and law. If you had done enough reading of early sources and the law, you would understand that's the case.
No, I mocked the notion that the Courts are always correct. Perhaps if you would pay more attention, you could keep up. (Also, put a question mark at the end of a question.)
Now you cite some obscure case that does not define “natural born citizen.”
Minor v Happersett is not obscure. It's pretty prominent in these discussions because it says exactly that the conventional wisdom is wrong.
NO COURT IN THE LAND WOULD RULE CRUZ OR RUBIO INELIGIBLE.
Cruz, I wouldn't be so sure about. Rubio, probably not. Cruz shares the exact same birth circumstances as Aldo Mario Bellei, and Bellei was stripped of his citizenship.
They will have to overturn Bellei to make Cruz a "natural born citizen." I wonder if Bellei is still alive, and how he would feel about this?
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.