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.

[CpnHook]

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.

I answered. Post #181. The Framers inherited a view stemming from English law for which place (jus soli) was primary, but which also recognized those born abroad to subjects. The principal rule (principal because most births are native birth) applies in the case of Obama, Jindal, Rubio; the secondary jus sanguinis) to births abroad.

And yet you delay. Was the asserted "two citizen parent" rule of Vattel incorporated into Article II? Or not?

Is that too hard for you to answer?

[Fantasywriter]

No, you never answered and you still have not. I didn’t ask about any of the ones you mentioned. I asked about Cruz. I not only asked if he is eligible, I asked if you would be pleased if he won.

Naturally you are desperate to change the subject. I don’t blame you for running as fast as you can from my questions. You don’t want to be banned.

But I suspect even for you a Cruz victory would be a relief. After six years of the America-hating terrorist-loving US-destroying radical Bill Ayers-protégé who didn’t even know there were 50 states, a patriot in the WH—one who actually puts America’s interests first—would be a relief even for the Obots.

Right?

[MamaTexan]

You've already given several excellent examples from other sources, but the only thing I can think of you might be referring to is concerning the Right of Election.

2. Aliens by election are all such natural born, or naturalized subjects of the crown of Great-Britain, as were born, or naturalized before the fourth day of July, 1776, and have not since become actual citizens of the United States;
[snip]
Aliens by election may then be shortly described to be those subjects of the crown of Great-Britain on the fourth day of July, 1776, who have elected to remain such, and have not since become, and continued to be, citizens of the United States, or some one of them.
St. George Tucker, (Annotated) Blackstone's Commentaries

This legislation from 1779 confirms Tuckers words that people remain aliens unless they formally become citizens.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens. The clerk of the court shall enter such oath of record, and give the person taking the same a certificate thereof, for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar.
Thomas Jefferson , A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth, May 1779

---

It would be ridiculous to think the Founders would have had everyone go to all the trouble of traveling to the courthouse, take an Oath of Allegiance, swear fealty to the Commonwealth and pay a dollar (no small sum then) if all government required to acknowledge someone as a citizen was their presence.

[WildHighlander57]

Yep, some on the other side of the argument don’t want to run into this:

Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? [Yes! And I support him! JimRob] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3084490/posts

[Fantasywriter]

What’s hilarious is that our #1 Obot troll has been stating since he joined the site that one thing & one thing only is necessary: birth on American soil. So now you ask him a simple question about Cruz, and he tap dances like Astaire in a fast-motion, speeded-up comedy video. You’d think you were asking him for the Unified Field Theory. That’s how complicated he’s trying to make the question, and how irrationally he’s behaving about it.

No one is surprised. Two things liberals are not known for: honesty and courage.

[CpnHook]

What’s hilarious is that our #1 [anti-Birther] has been stating since he joined the site that one thing & one thing only is necessary: birth on American soil.

Another of your false claims. I've many times cited to the statement by James Madison that mainly it's birth that is the criterion; but sometimes parentage. So birth on the soil is sufficient, but the English law from which ours was derived recognized birth to parents abroad. Your low watt bulb just can't seem to follow along.

The thing you seem not to get is that some insist that was the original rule, and based on that supposed rule it's claimed Cruz is not eligible. I am the one here opposing that rule. There was no "two citizen parent" requirement; so that is no obstacle to Cruz.

It's like Alice in Wonderland here. I'm stridently opposing the (false) rule which some conservatives claim makes Cruz ineligible, and the likes of you critique me for that.

So was the "two citizen parent" requirement adopted into Article II? Or not?

Let me help you out here: no, it was not.

[Fantasywriter]

What is your earliest citation of the Madison statement? Was it when you joined up and preached jus soli all day every day? Or was it after the site owner threw his support behind Cruz?

[CpnHook]

I moved a paragraph in the post above. By “some insist that was the original rule” I meant the “two citizen parent rule.”

[Fantasywriter]

Oh, and are you saying the Madison statement sets jus soli aside, and makes Cruz fully eligible? Would you support Cruz if he runs, and celebrate if he wins?

[CpnHook]

So was the "two citizen parent" requirement adopted into Article II? Or not?

I've asked you this six times now. You don't answer. (I wonder why).

This avoidance game of yours is beyond tiresome. I'll await your answer to that question. Until then, I see no point in bothering to answer more of yours.

[Fantasywriter]

Tap dancing ever more frantically, I see. I asked you my questions first. You’ve never, NEVER answered. Rather, you’ve been trying to change the subject ever since.

I’ll answer your questions for you.

According to what you posted prior to the Cruz endorsement, you would not consider him eligible.

You did not mention the Madison quote until after the Cruz endorsement, when you hoped by citing it to cover your long history of preaching jus soli.

You would never and could never support Cruz.

You’d be devastated if he won.

[Fantasywriter]

Correction:

‘Rather, you’ve been trying to change the subject ever since.’

Should be:

‘Rather, you’ve been trying desperately to change the subject ever since.

[CpnHook]

to cover your long history of preaching jus soli.

LOL. My first post on this site was July 28, 2013. The Site Owner put the kibosh on the excessive "two citizen parent" nonsense on August 30, 2013. In that "long history" of 33 days I managed to log perhaps 20 - 25 posts total; mostly about Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark, because that was what was being discussed then.

So was the "two citizen parent" theory (the one the site owner termed the creation of "internet sea lawyers) part of Article II or not?

You keep tap dancing, bobbing and weaving, delaying, and doing everything possible to avoid answering.

[Fantasywriter]

So when did you start citing Madison? That, after all, was my point. I.e.: when did you start mitigating your jus soli sermons with a frantic Madison-quote-cya?

Your two-parents obsession is a mental illness. You have yet to answer a single one of my questions, which I asked you first. Instead you desperately DEMAND that I go along with your frantic efforts to change the subject.

How about ‘no.’

You answer my questions first.

[CpnHook]

You have yet to answer a single one of my questions, which I asked you first

The only thing you asked before I asked you about Vattel was how Jus soli applied to Cruz. I've addressed the 3 times now. That I'm not giving the answer you want to hear isn't the same as not answering.

All the rest of your questions have arisen since I asked you about Vattel and the supposed two-citizen parent theory that DL, AmericanVictory and others insist on getting wrong.

Instead you desperately DEMAND that I go along with your frantic efforts to change the subject

I was discussing the two-citizen parent theory on January 24; you first got to this thread on January 30. I'm not changing the topic; you were the one who popped up trying to talk about immigration.

If you figure out the answer to whether you agree with DL and the others who read Vattel into Article II or whether you agree with Mr. Robinson and me that such theory is a bunch of historical and Constitutional hooey, let me know.

[Fantasywriter]

So now you’re lecturing me about how the discussion began. Fine, but let’s keep the facts straight.

You posted to me:

‘1. He claims that the jus soli rule of citizenship was not the original Constitutional view’

To which I responded:

‘Excuse me, but you DO want to see Ted Cruz elected this next go round, if the Good Lord delays His coming...right?’

You say you’ve answered that question 3 xs.

I say you have yet to answer it once.

Guess who’s right?

[Fantasywriter]

& while you’re at it, point out where, in my first question on this thread that was actually directed to you, I mentioned ‘immigration.’ [& if I want to talk about immigration with another poster, what business is that of yours? The question I directed to you makes no mention of immigration. Try to be accurate & honest in your facts, for once.]

[Fantasywriter]

The post/question immediate above is directed to you.

[Fantasywriter]

immediate = immediately

[CpnHook]

So now you’re lecturing me about how the discussion began.

I was making the indisputable point that on January 24 I was here on this thread discussing Article II. It's a thread about "eligibility," after all. From the lead article: "The Constitution requires that for you to be eligible to be president, both of your parents must be naturally born citizens." What you call my "two citizen parent obsession" just happens to be the topic of this thread. Get a clue, for once.

Article II and what "natural born citizen" entails has been the topic of this thread I've been having -- with John Valentine, DL, AV, Freepersup -- i.e., everyone BUT you. You just buzz around like some little gnat pestering me with questions about this, that, or some other thing. If you want to join in on the thread topic, fine. But I'm through with chasing every little side question you can think to bring up while assiduously avoiding talking about the main topic at hand.

So, again:

If you figure out the answer to whether you agree with DL and the others who read Vattel into Article II or whether you agree with Mr. Robinson and me that such theory is a bunch of historical and Constitutional hooey, let me know.