CATO Institute & Daily Caller Declares Foreign-Born Persons Eligible To Be President

Obama Release Your Records ^ | 8-27-2013 | llya Shapiro

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas — love him or hate him — continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret: Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

But does that mean that Cruz’s presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards, having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate?

No, actually, and it’s not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency. (The Founding Fathers didn’t want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)

What’s a “natural born citizen”? The Constitution doesn’t say, but the Framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.

Snip~

So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”

[DiogenesLamp]

The idea of citizenship, and who qualifies, is a human invention, not handed down by God written on stone tablets.

It's an extension of tribes, and I think God did have something to say about that.

What you are saying is that given certain assumptions common to our society, certain people have a natural right to citizenship. Which is true. But those assumptions themselves are human inventions, not natural laws.

They are observations noted by the writers on Natural Law, whom the Delegates and and Ratifying legislators mention by name. Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel, Wolf, Locke, Bynkershoek, Barbeyrac, Hobbes, etc.

The Romans would have agreed with you. Except they believed some men were "natural born slaves." Law of Nature.

Again, these were not opinions informed by the enlightenment, and so therefore aren't germane to this discussion.

[Sherman Logan]

IOW, you agree with me.

IF one accepts the opinions of the Enlightenment thinkers you mention, then one can reason to a conclusion as to who is NBC.

But the opinions of those thinkers as to what constitutes Natural Law are exactly that, their opinions. They are not facts. Other thinkers, with other basic assumptions, could come to different opinions on what Natural Law is. And those opinions, in and of themselves, would be neither more nor less valid.

[DiogenesLamp]

You really are a nutcase.

In 1854, John Charles Frémont (note the French accent over the "e" - that's how he spelled it) was the first Republican candidate for President of the United States.

We were talking about Bayard, you switched it to Frémont as if to prove something about Bayard, and *I'm* the nutcase?

Because his father, you see... had not been married to Frémont's mom.

That was it. Frémont was viciously attacked by birthers... because he was a bastard.

The rule for Bastards is Partus sequitur ventrem, and once again you are a Jackass for trying to use a rare exception to the norm in a pathetic attempt to disprove the rule. For Bastards, the legal system does not recognize a father, because if the mother won't give up the name it cannot.

But no one seems to have given a damn that his father hadn't been a United States citizen at the time Frémont was born.

Regarding Bastards, the Law takes no notice of an alleged father. A man can simply deny paternity and no one (at the time) could prove otherwise.

Why? Because unlike Griesser, Frémont was born in the United States, to a RESIDENT alien father.

As the law takes no notice of the father, it doesn't matter where he resides. Even so, I can't help but notice you ALWAYS RUN AWAY FROM THIS ARGUMENT WHEN OBAMA'S FATHER IS BEING TALKED ABOUT.

You, who have defended Obama's legitimacy all these years, constantly IGNORE the point that Barack Obama sr. was a TRANSIENT ALIEN, never intending to be an American Citizen.

He was a Kenyan Citizen with his permanent Residence in Kenya.

So tell us once more Jeff, does the fact that OBAMA'S FATHER is a Temporary visitor, make Obama not a citizen, or not? Do we apply the "Griesser rule" to Obama? If not, why not?

[Ray76]

Stipulating to Obama’s reputed life story, I think any claim to citizenship that Obama may have would depend on Stanley Ann Dunham’s age, US residency and marital status at the time of Obama’s birth, as well as whether that marriage was bigamous.

[DiogenesLamp]

Let me summarize your point.

A "citizen at birth" is a very, very different thing from a "citizen at birth."

Now you are Strawman lying. A "citizen at birth" by James Bayard's understanding, was one born to a citizen Father.

A "Citizen at birth" nowadays can be created by a naturalization statute. Something very different from what existed in Bayard's time. The 14th amendment also creates "citizens at birth" willy nilly from illegal alien parents. Are these intended to be "natural born citizens"?

It is a blatant attempt at lying to conflate these sorts of "citizens at birth" with what James Bayard understood the term to mean, and it is EXACTLY that sort of lying which you do ALL THE TIME.

And anyone who disagrees with this is a "habitual liar."

You certainly are. You falsely equate one thing to another, and then attempt to argue that distinction is absurd because they are equal. As your premise is FALSE, so are your CONCLUSIONS!

It is a characteristic for which you are regarded as a habitual liar because you apply it to all sorts of other examples, Such as Jefferson being a French citizen. (falsely equating Honorary citizenship with actual)

Wow. You got me, dude.

I very much doubt it. You will continue your deliberate lying, of that I have no doubts.

[DiogenesLamp]

You aren't even very good at mockery. Here, let me show you how it's done.

James A Bayard.

"If I ever get my hands on that Jeff Winston, i'm going to bitchslap him for lying about what I said!"

John Bingham

"You said it bro! I already warned him about that sh*t!"

John Marshall

"Me too. I want a piece of his @$$! I'm bout ready to knot his head with my gavel!"

Thomas Jefferson

"I don't know what you guys are bitching about, He said I was "French"! He'll think "french" after iv'e French-Fried his Punk @$$!"

George Washington

"He said the same thing about me. I'll do him like I did the British in this Video."

[DiogenesLamp]

But the opinions of those thinkers as to what constitutes Natural Law are exactly that, their opinions. They are not facts. Other thinkers, with other basic assumptions, could come to different opinions on what Natural Law is. And those opinions, in and of themselves, would be neither more nor less valid.

What is fact is that our Founders based their opinions, and therefore their efforts on behalf of our laws, upon those opinions of the Natural law thinkers. (John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.)

Not the British Version. (Natural law = Permanent Allegiance to the King who rules by divine right.)

[DiogenesLamp]

Agreed. As far as i'm concerned, nothing has been nailed down solid regarding Obama's paternity or country of birth. I accept that Stanley Ann was his mother because not only do all her relatives agree on this, he also strongly resembles Stanley Dunham. (When he was young.)

I personally don't regard the Bastard Exception to Partus Sequitur Patrem as an acceptable substitute for the Intended purpose of "natural born citizen."

[Sherman Logan]

What is fact is that our Founders based their opinions, and therefore their efforts on behalf of our laws, upon those opinions of the Natural law thinkers.... Not the British Version.

You have, of course, a right to hold this opinion.

I have an opinion I consider more determinitive, that of a 6-2 decision of the Supreme Court. They disagreed with you.

The Constitution ... In this as in other respects, ... must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. ... The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.

The two dissenters agreed with you as to the inapplicability of common law in this regard, but were outvoted.

I thought this comment in the dissent particularly interesting in regard to the Cruz case, since it specifically uses NBC term.

In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government.

This principle would make Cruz NBC, assuming the justice means one citizen parent rather than two, and that he intended this to apply to a citizen mother as well as to a citizen father, both of which are rather large assumptions.

I also found if very interesting that the dissenters believed that the President and Congress can essentially override an Amendment of the Constitution (14A) by treaty, a principle I think we will agree is very dangerous.

[JCBreckenridge]

Changing the requirement as you have would permit said person to become president.

[JCBreckenridge]

Ok, that would explain it! I was a bit confused...

[Rides3]

Those are really good!

Thanks for the laugh!

[DiogenesLamp]

I have an opinion I consider more determinitive, that of a 6-2 decision of the Supreme Court. They disagreed with you.

They disagree with me on Abortion, On Sodomy, on Private Property rights, on Forced participation in a Government Health Care Program, on whether a farmer can grow wheat for his own cattle, on Private Property and Imminent Domain, and any number of other issues as well.

Given that I cannot accept that I am wrong and they are right on these issues, I must conclude that their position on something is not proof of it's correctness, and therefore I should take no heed of their position in terms of understanding what is the actual truth.

The Supreme Court has a long history of being wrong. I have a personal long history of being correct.

The two dissenters agreed with you as to the inapplicability of common law in this regard, but were outvoted.

I assume you are referring to Wong Kim Ark? It is a mistake to regard subsequent legal opinion as being consistent with the holding of Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark can be regarded as a correct ruling if it is interpreted narrowly and as being consistent with the intent of the 14th amendment. If it is interpreted broadly (as most people want to do) then it is incorrect, rather, it is incorrect to interpret it broadly.

This principle would make Cruz NBC, assuming the justice means one citizen parent rather than two, and that he intended this to apply to a citizen mother as well as to a citizen father, both of which are rather large assumptions.

The standard has always been that citizenship descends from the Father. This was the standard in 1787, and neither the Cable Act or the Citizenship act of 1934 should be regarded as having the power to amend article II through the back door of statute law.

I also found it very interesting that the dissenters believed that the President and Congress can essentially override an Amendment of the Constitution (14A) by treaty, a principle I think we will agree is very dangerous.

I assume you are referring to the Chinese Exclusion act of 1882? I agree, and so too did the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark. They regarded Wong Kim Ark as having citizenship by virtue of the 14th amendment, essentially overriding the Chinese Exclusion act.

They did not, however, go so far as to name him a "natural born citizen." Given their previous decision (Plessy v Ferguson) dividing citizenship into classes, it is consistent with their thinking that he would not be regarded as such. Had they intended it otherwise, It is reasonable to believe they would have explicitly said so in their ruling.

They conspicuously omitted such language.

[DiogenesLamp]

Those are really good!

Thanks for the laugh!

Thanks. I always try for humor. "Laughter rocks the Highest throne." Or High horse, as the case may be.

[SaraJohnson]

The LIEbertarians liberals at CATO claim we don’t have borders, either. They are globalists and I don’t care to listen to the treasonous turds.

[NJ_Tom]

The "fly in the ointment" here is found in the statement "The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." If your citizenship derives from any Act or Amendment, it cannot be "natural born."