Posted on 01/22/2015 2:41:41 PM PST by 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.
‘You just buzz around like some little gnat pestering me with questions about this, that, or some other thing.’
You posted to me first. Here is what you posted:
‘‘1. He claims that the jus soli rule of citizenship was not the original Constitutional view’’
To which I asked the entirely pertinent question of where that statement puts you with respect to Cruz. I.e.: do you want to see him elected or not?
Since you claim to have already answered three times, and since it’s a simple yes or no question, it should be no trouble for you to clarify your answer.
I.e.: IF you previously answered this question, it was a muddled, indecipherable mess. So by all means clarify your position: would you like to see Cruz elected in ‘16?
That pretty much blows CpnKook's theory that George Washington was a "natural born citizen" of the United States when he was born a natural born subject of King George III. And from one of his own claimed sources too!
Still, this is not the information that I seem to recall, but it has been many months since I have devoted much time or research to this subject. I may be getting something crossed in my recollection regarding who posted it and to whom it was in reference. I thought it was you, but if it was not, perhaps i'll be able to remember eventually.
This is one of the problems with reading so much information on the topic. It all starts to blur together, especially if you don't keep it refreshed.
OK, I will grant that given the question posed by the original article to this thread, the way I phrased that was deficient. Better to have said:
"He claims (agreeing with the article) that the original intent of "natural born citizen" required citizen parents."
To that claim I say "No." (The site owner here also says "No.")
Other posters (AV, John Valentine, Freepersup) seem to say "Yes.'
So those I've interacted with have addressed the thread topic either "Yes" or "No." That's the question: does the Constitution require that to be President a person be born to citizen parents? The thread isn't taking a straw poll of still largely undeclared candidates.
So on the thread topic, everyone has weighed in. Except you.
So I keep asking: "Do you agree with DL and the others who read Vattel into Article II or do you agree with Mr. Robinson and me that such theory is a bunch of historical and Constitutional hooey?" That's the keep-on-topic question.
You are an idiot. In dicta he used it. In the decision, he did not. He deliberately chose not to add that extra word into the decision. And as I have pointed out, discussing Wong Kim Ark when all the evidence lies at the other end of the Century is a fools game. Of course you want to play it.
You want me to address your Story quote? Let's look at it.
“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.
Americans don't have a Sovereign. They eschewed the principle of perpetual allegiance to the King. In any case, Story was a well known Anglophile when it comes to law. He was con-temporarily chastised for it. He was also not a member of the Constitutional Convention or one of the State's ratifying convention, so he has no first hand knowledge of what was argued and decided at those events. John Marshall and Bushrod Washington were and did. This is that issue of "Provenance" which you keep stumbling over. Story has no Provenance for his claims. He was not a member of the deciding circle. Furthermore, Story had the same reasons as Rawle for arguing the English Law for citizenship instead of Vattel. The Vattel version of Natural law gives him no support for his efforts to abolish slavery. English Law did.
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.”
And yet the history has proven otherwise. From what I have been able to discover, approximately 100,000 children were born to British Loyalists after July 4, 1776, and before September 3, 1783. They were recognized as being British Subjects by both the US Government, and by the British Crown. Again, Accepted government policy and demonstrable history does not agree with Story's assertion in this quote. His assertion has ~ a hundred thousand holes in it.
I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your idiocy. I don't feel like spending much time on you.
You remind me of Bill Clinton. Whenever he makes a bad golf shot, he takes a mulligan.
How you phrased it stands. In light of that phraseology, as explained above, it opens the door for a crucially pertinent and important question. Namely, would you/do you support Ted Cruz for POTUS? Would you be delighted if he wins?
This is coercion from down the barrel of a gun, and it demonstrates what a piece of scum you are. Why resort to facts and reason when you can use arm twisting?
That demonstrates exactly the sort of person you are. You don't want the truth, you want compliance. I believe the Nazis called this "Gleichschaltung ".
Best proof ever that you're a Liberal. Punishing dissent is their goto tactic.
Lacking the specification in the Constitution itself concerning the definition of natural born citizen and irregardless of evidence given, someone seeking the truth might try looking at the question from a different direction, such as-
If the Founders wrote natural born citizen, how many natural parents did it take to make the natural born child?
or even from a mathematical standpoint:
If 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, how can 1/2 + 0 = 1 whole?
Just sayin'. :-)
Thanks, DL. He’s a bully but he doesn’t bother me. This is because if he strays even a centimeter off the one narrow topic to which he has the talking points down cold, he makes moronically stupid comments. I’m incapable of being intimidated by anyone sufficiently stupid to make the kind of idiotic pronouncements this person has made the instant—the very instant—he goes off his rote replies.
CH, I’m ready to make a deal with you. Now listen closely; you have a history of wholesale misunderstandings re: most of what you read that you don’t agree with. So pay attention.
Do this. Find me a quote from one of the Founding Fathers that says ‘in the future’ - i.e.: subsequent to the grandfather clause - they would be fine with a POTUS born of permanently foreign/anti-American parents, so long as the child was born on American soil. You find and post that quote, and I will respond to the question you ask with parrot-like repetition, as if without that one question you are a verbal cripple incapable of rational discussion.
Take your time finding the quote. I’ll wait.
You can't read. Tucker says that aliens were such that were natural born subjects before July, 1776 and have not since become actual citizens of the United States. Washington (and his colleagues born in the colonies) had since become citizens.
We can know Washington, et al. considered themselves as "natural born citizens" by understanding the purpose of the so-called "grandfather clause" of Article II. The consistent historical testimony is that the clause was added in consideration of those foreign born persons who had distinguished themselves in the Revolutionary period. Examples:
"[The Grandfaher Clause] was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country...." Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472--73 (1833)
“The exception as to those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was justly due to those men who had united themselves with the fate of the new nation, and rendered eminent services in achieving its independence ; and is, necessarily, of limited continuance.” James Bayard, A brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 96 (1833)
"The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president ; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that " no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president." George Bancroft, History of the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America pg 346 (1866)
“The exception in favor of such persons of foreign birth as were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is now practically extinct. The distinguished patriots who had so faithfully served their adopted country during the revolutionary struggle, and out of respect and gratitude to whom this exception was introduced into the Constitution, have all passed away. No one, therefore, but a natural born citizen can now be elected to the office of President.” Henry Flanders, An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1877)
"The exception to the "natural born" qualification was the Convention's way of paying an extraordinary compliment to Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, two distinguished members of the Convention who were foreign born. Of course, any other foreign- born citizen having the other qualifications would have been eligible, but the clause was drawn in favor of the two statesmen here mentioned." Edward Waterman Townsend, Our Constitution: Why and how it was Made - who Made It, and what it Is pg 186 (1906)
There is no historical source -- either primary or secondary -- stating that the "grandfather clause" was added because otherwise Washington and others native-born persons wouldn't be eligible.
When Jay writes his letter to Washington suggesting the president be required to be a natural born citizen, he gives no indication that such term would exclude Washington himself. (And one can't anachronistically read-in a future grandfather clause into his letter as that didn't exist when Jay was writing). Jay wrote the letter (and Washington received it) obviously understanding that Washington was a natural born citizen.
And James Madison (in a passage I previously showed you) explains the theory: there was both primary local political community/allegiance and a secondary allegiance to the Crown. The latter was severed without disrupting continuity of the former.
Those who were natives, i.e, "natural born," remained "natural born," but with a slight change of terminology. The "grandfather clause" was added for the foreign born.
And, yes, I know, this is 10 paragraphs -- no doubt too much for you to handle. My apologies. But I can't help there is just so much out there that proves you wrong.
Note: if the phrase, ‘grandfather clause’ gives you hysterical fits/the vapors, then do this. Just find me ***any*** quote from the Framers, re: of context, in which they say something distinctly along the lines of, ‘a person born of permanently foreign/anti-American parents would be fine for POTUS, so long as the child was born on American soil.’
Again, take your time. I’ll wait.
Ha! The guy asserting *I* can't read completely overlooks the usage and the meaning of the word "Since."
The rest of your post is typical Dr. Conspiracy drivel based on the same previous faulty assumptions.
What you, like all other Birthers who seek to remain consciously clueless about judicial method and terminology, fail to grasp is that what is binding for stare decisis purposes is not just the decision in the case, but what's termed the ratio decidendi -- the key legal points and rationale of the decision. Gray's analysis in Parts II and III of this decision -- where he states that the English common law jus soli was the "same rule" that existed from the time of the Colonies to the Declaration and under the Constitution and beyond -- is part of his reasoning. It was that "rule" that was incorporated into the 14th Amendment's language "born . . . in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
So Gray's 32 usages of "natural born" are part of the essential rationale. It's not dicta.
And as I have pointed out, discussing Wong Kim Ark when all the evidence lies at the other end of the Century is a fools game.
At the other end of the century? LOL. You are helpless. Swift (1795), Tucker (1803 -- who stated U.S. law was "accordanct" with Blackstone's jus soli view), Kent (1826), Rawle (1829), Story (1830) are all very much early century.
And at the end of the century when the first and greatest SCOTUS citizenship case is argued, how do your sources fare? Marshall is cited, but only by the majority and only as to jurisdiction and naturalization. Bushrod Washington is completely ignored. Samuel Roberts? LOL.
So much for the "provenance" of your sources: on this issue they impress you, but you alone.
Story was a well known Anglophile when it comes to law.
As was everyone else, since they all were steeped in Blackstone. Blackstone, as you may recall from the Donald Lutz study, was the No. 2 most-cited author in the Revolutionary to post-Constitutional period. Vattel? Oh, right, he came in about No. 30.
Story was without question one of our most influential jurists:
One of the towering figures in U.S. Legal History, Story shaped U.S. law both as a judge and as the author of a series of legal treatises. Some legal commentators believe Story's treatises were as influential in the development of nineteenth-century U.S. law as the works of the English jurists Sir William Blackstone and Sir Edward Coke had been earlier. Source
This is why in WKA both the majority and dissent were trying to claim Story in their camp. It's just that the majority had the clear jus soli language from Inglis
Your attempt to waive Story aside is just one more bit of hilarity.
Oh, c'mon. Stop the melodramatics.
The article at the start of this thread asserts to be Presidential eligible a person must be born to citizen parents. I'm merely asking FW if she agrees with that. It's not a complex or coercive question. But yet she evades it.
That the site owner disagrees is simply a point of fact. Though it does cause my eyes to roll every time your or FW suggest that by denying the citizen parent theory I'm advocating some anti-American, anti-Constitutional thing.
So making a point of Constitutional history by reference to actual Constitutional historians is a "faulty assumption?" Just when I think you can't get any sillier, you manage to top yourself.
Face it, there is NO ONE writing around the time of the Constitution or later who says "the clause 'or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution' was added later in the Convention when it suddenly dawned on someone that "natural born citizen" by itself made Washington and everyone else who matter ineligible." Wow, what a 'Holy S**t' moment that must have been. But in your silly mind, it seems that's how you picture it.
There isn't one. Just as there isn't one in which it's distinctly said "we have concerns about the allegiance of a child born here in the U.S. who has a non-citizen parent." Nor is there really any discussion AT ALL about the meaning of "natural born citizen." The Constitutional record is devoid of any discussion about what that meant.
That's why there's a debate.
The relevancy starts with the fact, IE written, that the Constitution written and subscribed to by the Founders must have deliberately chosen different context with wording in Article I for Congress and/vs. Article II for POTUSA.
And now it’s time for you to answer this simple question, which was legitimately engendered by a post *you* made to *me.*
‘Would you/do you support Ted Cruz for POTUS? Would you be delighted if he wins?’
At the other end of the century? LOL. You are helpless. Swift (1795), Tucker (1803 -- who stated U.S. law was "accordanct" with Blackstone's jus soli view), Kent (1826), Rawle (1829), Story (1830) are all very much early century.
And all of them are little teeny tiny dwarves compared to Madison, Franklin, Wilson, Washington, Jay, Adams, Marshall, etc.
Nobody is buying your little dwarves song.
Your attempt to waive Story aside is just one more bit of hilarity.
Your attempt to paint him as bigger than Marshall is even more hilarity.
With no bearing on the topic other than it's use as an implied coercive tactic. You must think we are as stupid as you are.
Though it does cause my eyes to roll every time your or FW suggest that by denying the citizen parent theory I'm advocating some anti-American, anti-Constitutional thing.
Yes, because 11 million + anchor babies are certainly a matter of levity.
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.