Open request to Senator Cruz

[big bad easter bunny]

The Constitution requires that for you to be eligible to be president, both of your parents must be naturally born citizens. You do not meet that qualification, if I am wrong please straiten me out. If you get the nomination I promise you the democrats will do what the republicans are too scared to do.

Dear Ted I think you are awesome but we all need to know the answer to this.

[freepersup]

Well I’ll be damned- looks like we have a strikingly similar take on what is a natural born citizen and why it matters. Good to see a little sarcasm and snarkiness out of you... seeing how it’s targeting the army of Fogbow swarming the birther threads (like locusts to wheat). FWIW I’ve decided to stay off the mary jane threads, at least when I’m imbibing of yee old merry ethanol alcohol. Eagles up/freepersup.

[freepersup]

Time for a “Come... On... Man...” moment- The founders included an exemption at the time for themselves and others (born elsewhere) to hold the office of President or Vice President. (face palm)

[CpnHook]

When you finally say something about John Marshall and Bushrod Washington,(BOTH members of the Ratifying convention, BOTH Supreme Court Justices) . . .

And neither one a person actually purporting to state that Vattel supplies the rule on citizenship in the U.S. Only in your vain imagination is that the case.

If they had said that, then C.J. Fuller in his WKA dissent had the perfect opportunity to claim two former Justices and Convention attendees to support his view that Vattel should be viewed as the original Constitutional view. But Fuller doesn't bother bringing them into the picture. Why? Because neither Marshall nor B. Washington say that!

Read you do (sometimes), but comprehend you do not.

Now if you want an example of a SCOTUS Justice clearly articulating a rule on birth-citizenship and clearly stating such is the rule in the U.S., then I refer you to Justice Story in Inglis

“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign…. That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Read his words: 1) citizenship requires only that birth a) occur on the soil of the sovereign and b) under the protection of the sovereign (i.e., NO mention of "citizen parents"); 2) the Inglis's parents were British; and 3) if he was born during the time when the U.S. was in control of New York, then Inglis was a citizen. " Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.” Here, he's reciting the same rule laid down by Blackstone.

And, btw, J. Marshall was with Story on the Court when Inglis was decided. And J. Thompson's majority opinion in that case accepts that John Inglis would be a citizen at birth if born after 1776, despite his British parents. Does Marshall object? No. Why? Because Marshall didn't subscribe to a different view.

[Slap slap].

And, btw, you haven't explained how Swift (1795) and Tucker (1803) are "later day lawyers" when you're touting Sam Roberts (1817)? But we all know you duck and run when your errors are highlighted.

But, oh, gosh. This post is now about up to 6 paragraphs. Is that too long for you to read? Is the "wall of text," head-in-the-sand response coming? LOL.

[CpnHook]

Time for a “Come... On... Man...” moment- The founders included an exemption at the time for themselves and others (born elsewhere) to hold the office of President or Vice President. (face palm)

But that exemption didn't exist when Jay was writing his letter. So you can't just project that onto Jay and Washington's discourse. They both understood that Washington was a "natural born citizen" without need of any special qualifier.

The exemption was added later for the benefit of those foreign-born persons (like Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson) who were distinguished Revolutionary figures.

Now hit yourself again, only harder.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think the Framers' point of view was essentially the English view they had known, one that I submit was expressed by James Madison in the passage most everyone should about have memorized:

Ah, but PRESIDENT Madison did not adhere to this view.

He allowed James McClure to rot in a French Prison for almost two years rather than order his Ambassador (John Armstrong who *WAS* a member of the 1787 continental congress, and for whom we apparently have an actual photograph)

to secure his release. It was explicitly pointed out to Madison that James McClure was *BORN* in Charleston South Carolina, and Madison was painfully aware of who James McClure was. It took the intervention of a Supreme Court Justice (Justice William Johnson)

and a Congressman from South Carolina (Langdon Cheves)

to eventually convince the Madison administration to regard him as an American citizen, and send the appropriate instructions to secure his release.

If Madison really believed that mere birth on the soil was the only requirement, why didn't he countermand Armstrong and order his release right away?

What is always left out of the understanding of the issue by you Obots, is that James Madison argued that William Smith was a citizen under Common law, *AND* that he was a citizen through inheritance. You also leave out the fact that Madison and William Smith were political allies. You also leave out the fact that William Smith himself argued before Congress that according to Vattel, he was a citizen.

You only put forth that one statement in the manner of the Liberal Media with a soundbite, and you make no effort to insure people have a comprehensive understanding of the motives or subsequent history of the event or of James Madison's opinions on the subject.

In other words, you don't care what the truth is, you only want people to believe it is what you want it to be.

Well it isn't.

[DiogenesLamp]

This does not sound like St. George Tucker thought that one parent could have allegiance to any other country nor the person be born in another country to come within what the Constitution meant.

I recall reading some passages from St. George Tucker that removes any ambiguity as to his position on the topic, and it is pro jus sanguinus. I believe it was some of his own notes on Blackstones commentaries where this is found. "Mamma Texan" I believe pointed this out to me a long time ago.

Too much stuff to remember anymore.

[AmericanVictory]

Here is what St. George Tucker said of this clause:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted), is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. ...The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member of this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated amongst us all the evils of Pandora's Box.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wong Kim Ark is not about presidential eligibility. Fuller's dissent in it is based on what he knew was the founder's view on citizenship, the same as what Story said in Shanks v. Dupont. All three are in accord. The view was widely held and so there was no need for Fuller to quote Marshall.

I think citing far removed subsequent legal cases is getting the cart before the horse. It ignores how erroneous ideas get adopted under the legal tu quoque fallacy known as "Precedent."

It has been my observation that Rawle greatly misled subsequent legal minds and the damage he did cannot be overstated. His book was widely circulated, and I believe it played no small part in pushing the jus soli claim into the subsequent legal consciousness of that era.

Rawle knew very well his was a minority opinion amongst the legal minds of Philadelphia with whom he was in contact in the early days of the Republic. Indeed, the others mocked him for some of his arguments about being born twice. ("With revolutionary forceps!"

He was also unanimously struck down by the Pennsylvania Supreme court in his efforts to argue these claims of citizenship back in 1804.

I think that any claim of knowledge regarding founders intent for Article II should have some provenance that traces back to the founders and the convention itself. The Majority in Wong Kim Ark simply ignore things they didn't like, such as the war of 1812.

[freepersup]

Projecting is verboten? Well hell then... so’s all of this opining by you and your coterie about what’s what. Jay served on a committee to detect and defeat conspiracies of British actions aimed at the Loyalists. Are you trying to convince the listening audience that John Jay was for the singular citizen parent qualifier for loyalty credentials to hold the office of the Presidency and Vice Presidency? Balderdash. What’s the frequency Kenneth? I shan’t be hitting me self either.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well I’ll be damned- looks like we have a strikingly similar take on what is a natural born citizen and why it matters. Good to see a little sarcasm and snarkiness out of you... seeing how it’s targeting the army of Fogbow swarming the birther threads (like locusts to wheat). FWIW I’ve decided to stay off the mary jane threads, at least when I’m imbibing of yee old merry ethanol alcohol. Eagles up/freepersup.

I remember when this pinhead first showed up. He was all full of himself back then too. He comes at me with all these same old tired and worn out arguments and expects me to pay attention to him. Like. A. Child.

He still is.

He doesn't grasp that his interpretation of "natural born citizen" serves no useful purpose. That it even now justifies this army of invaders we are currently experiencing known as "anchor babies" and "birth tourists."

That it undermines the vitality of the nation by watering down the difference between Americans and Aliens.

His position is that we have no distinctly American character, that anyone can be an American if they just happen to be born here.

If we applied this concept to Adoption law, I could be a Rockefeller if my Mom had snuck on to their estate before I was born. Utterly stupid in both theory and in application.

[DiogenesLamp]

And neither one a person actually purporting to state that Vattel supplies the rule on citizenship in the U.S.

And what did the Longest serving Chief Justice and Assistant to James Madison at the Virginia Ratifying convention have to say?

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 (And he quotes)

"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."

Yes, that's completely ambiguous. You are an idiot.

[DiogenesLamp]

But that exemption didn't exist when Jay was writing his letter. So you can't just project that onto Jay and Washington's discourse. They both understood that Washington was a "natural born citizen" without need of any special qualifier.

Washington was a "Natural Born Subject" of King George III.

He BECAME a naturalized citizen July 4, 1776, along with all the other colonists.

Once again, you are an idiot.

[CpnHook]

I recall reading some passages from St. George Tucker that removes any ambiguity as to his position on the topic.

Indeed. In his Commentaries, Blackstone writes (Book I, chapter 10):

The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

Tucker in his "Blackstone's Commentaries" quotes this, then drops a footnote (footnote 10):

10. L. V. Edi. 1794, c. 110. L. U. S. 1 Cong. c. 3. 7 Cong. c. 28. accordant.

The references are to three items of U.S law: 1) Laws of Virginia of 1794 (the citizenship law for the Commonwealth originally drafted by Jefferson); 2) The Naturalization Act of 1790; and 3) the 1802 Naturalization Act.

Of these Tucker states U.S. law is "accordant" meaning in agreement with Blackstone. So Tucker is indicating that American law is in agreement with the jus soli view of Blackstone.

[CpnHook]

Yes, that's completely ambiguous.

He quotes Vattel. It's a case about domicile. Marshall doesn't purport to state Vattel supplies any rule of citizenship in the U.S. That's why Marshall stays quiet when Story states the rule flatly opposite to what you claim.

You are an idiot.

Looking in the mirror, are you?

[DiogenesLamp]

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted), is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. ...The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member of this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated amongst us all the evils of Pandora's Box.

In those days, "native" and "natural" were virtually interchangeable. They both derive from "Natal" which means "of birth." I used to have some examples where the term "native" was being used to describe someone born of citizen parents, but I will have to look them up again.

Here's this. 1770 Britannica Encyclopedia.

Too much stuff to keep up with, especially if you don't refresh it once in awhile.

In 1770 America, it was exceedingly rare for someone to be born here who was not born to citizen or immigrant parents. (Though it happened.)

[DiogenesLamp]

He quotes Vattel. It's a case about domicile. Marshall doesn't purport to state Vattel supplies any rule of citizenship in the U.S.

You are delusional. You cannot find many more compelling and less ambiguous statements on the topic than that.

Yes, he does indeed state that Vattel's definition is the "more explicit and more satisfactory " than any other of which he is aware.

If he believed the United States followed the simpleminded jus soli method, there would be no need to invoke Vattel.

In your nonsensical world John Marshall would have said:
"Born here? Well we're done then. "

Idiot.

[CpnHook]

You cannot find many more compelling and less ambiguous statements on the topic than that.

Yes, he does indeed state that Vattel's definition is the "more explicit and more satisfactory " than any other of which he is aware.

And which definition of Vattel is Marshall focused on? How about it's the one that is at issue in the case? Domicile. And anyone who isn't reading Marshall's dissent with your stupid, result-driven approach can understand this by noting what Marshall discusses immediately following the Vattel passage:

A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."

And if you weren't so demonstrably inept at handling legal cases (you once claimed Gray in WKA didn't use the term "natural born citizen" -- duh, he uses it about 10 times plus about 32 usages of "natural born"), then you might have a clue here.

BTW, your theory that Rawle was the source of the jus soli view is still poppycock given that Swift and Tucker give support for the same rule well before Rawle.

And what about Joseph Story? I'm wondering how many times you and AmericanVictory can pretend to ignore this:

“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign…. That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

He writes this the year following Rawle's publication of his treating on the Consitution. How did Story come to view the jus soli view as "well-settled?" Did Rawle sneak into the SCOTUS chambers and pull a fast one on Story with Marshall right there saying nothing?

Story is, after all, only just one of the most influential Justices ever. He didn't have the loyalist father or the training in England. Kinda messes up your theory about Rawle big-time.

But you got that ostrich thing going for you. You can just keep pretending this all doesn't blow your theory out of the water.

[Fantasywriter]

Ever since you joined FR you have been preaching the doctrine of jus soli. Now, when asked a simple question about it, you are too cowardly to say what the doctrine YOU have used this FR to advance means in re: to Cruz.

There is nothing in the world more dishonest than an Obot trolling on FR.

[Fantasywriter]

I’m going to try to think of something nice to say about the stale, boring, stupid, classless, jerkish, childish, repetitive, mindless, boorish insults you use the way a cripple uses a crutch.

Thinking.

Thinking.

Thinking.

Still thinking.

Nope; can’t do it. It’s just a Turret’s type of addictive dysfunctional compulsion you engage in. You really need to take it to another forum. It’s become ludicrously silly and irrelevant here.

[Fantasywriter]

Btw, if you could see your moronically dependent use of insults through anyone else’s eyes for even a few seconds (barring a smattering of moonbats, who lamely rely on the same tactic) you’d never resort to it again.