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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Can't summon up enough interest in your delusions (that Washington was Twice born with allegiance to a government) to bother with a response.

You will carry on your ranting without me I expect.

[Fantasywriter]

‘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.’

Well do you or don’t you advocate anti-Americanism in the WH? We have an anti-American there now. He takes after his father, who despised the US, hated what we stand for, and wanted nothing to do with US citizenship. Do you advocate the type of destruction our anti-American ruler has unleashed on the USA or not?

[Fantasywriter]

Please disregard my prior post. You are the last person in the world it was intended for.

[Fantasywriter]

‘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.’

Well do you or don’t you advocate anti-Americanism in the WH? We have an anti-American there now. He takes after his father, who despised the US, hated what we stand for, and wanted nothing to do with US citizenship. Do you advocate the type of destruction our anti-American ruler has unleashed on the USA or not?

[DiogenesLamp]

So I take it you still cannot provide anything from the Constitution, US Law, or SCOTUS rulings that clearly and unambiguously defines "Natural Born" as requiring two US Citizen parents at birth, correct?

From the perspective of 1787, it would be like requiring a definition of the word "foot."

Anyone who would need one is probably too stupid to understand one. I would suggest you could figure out the meaning by looking how it worked in practice.

100,000 Children born to British Fathers in the United States after July 4,1776 and before September 3, 1783 (Treaty of Paris) were recognized by both the US Government *AND* the British government as NOT American citizens.

Several Millions of blacks born in the United States after July 4, 1776, and before July 9, 1868, *NOT* recognized by the US Government as American Citizens.

Several Million Indians born in the United States after July 4, 1776, and before June 2, 1924, *NOT* recognized by the US Government as American Citizens.

Are you getting the gist of how it worked in practice? Do you know how many violations of that "born on the soil" theory there were? Millions. So many that it demonstrates the theory to be patently absurd.

[DiogenesLamp]

:)

[SoConPubbie]

From the perspective of 1787, it would be like requiring a definition of the word "foot."

Anyone who would need one is probably too stupid to understand one. I would suggest you could figure out the meaning by looking how it worked in practice.

Still doesn't matter.

From the perspective of constitutionality, the meaning of that day, unless codified in the Constitution, US Law, and/or SCOTUS rulings is not the same as a constitutional definition.

In order for your definition, and the definition that you declare was the general meaning, because it was not the universal meaning as proven by the writings of those alive around the same general time, in order to make your definition the constitutional definition, it will require a new amendment to the Constitution, a new US Law, or a ruling by SCOTUS. Until then, it is just your opinion of WHAT SHOULD BE Constitutional. Not what is Constitutional.

[noinfringers2]

I provided you and others with written facts of history. If such is not to yours or others liking/preference that then becomes your and other’s problem. I put and take the history and written words of the Founders before speculation as to what They did not say.

[DiogenesLamp]

In order for your definition, and the definition that you declare was the general meaning, because it was not the universal meaning as proven by the writings of those alive around the same general time,

Who are you talking about? Certainly Franklin and Wilson followed the jus sanguinus version. They said so when they wrote the original Pennsylvania constitution. John Marshall and Bushrod Washington likewise explicitly said they followed Vattel on matters of citizenship. Then there is the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that said that Vattel was the standard for citizenship in our country. (They shot down William Rawle's case on the matter by Unanimous vote against him.)

You have James Monroe explicitly stating that a man born here to English Parents was NOT an American citizen, you have John Armstrong saying that another man born here of English Parents was NOT an American citizen, and you have James Madison himself backing up Ambassador Armstrong's decision in this, perhaps even going so far as to defend this decision in the newspaper under his old Federalist Papers pseudonym "Publius." Whoever wrote that, certainly knew the inner details of the affair that would very likely be unknown outside of the Madison government itself.

You have Vattel's law of Nations explicitly mentioned and cited in various state ratifying conventions, and you have the real practice of how the children of British Loyalists were regarded by the government at that time.

You have numerous and sundry other lesser officials (Langdon Cheves, William Lewis, William Johnson, Baynard, etc.) asserting it as well. You have the very document which CREATED US Citizenship citing Natural law in utter defiance of the British Natural Born Subject law.

Who have you got saying otherwise? Rawle? Definitely. Story? More ambiguous and unclear. St. George Tucker? Very liberal reading to put him in that camp. Madison made that one statement, but did the very opposite when he was in power.

In fact, you have very little support for the English law idea of subjectude in the early Governing authorities.

I believe I have come to understand how the Rawle version turned the existing understanding upside down and why. You see, I have been researching Rawle, and I am convinced that it was impossible for him to be unaware of how wrong he was.

The legal circles he ran in, the very men he worked with, all had the opposite view from that which Rawle wrote in his book. It was impossible for him to avoid the conclusions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania regarding what English laws applied.

In the Legal circles of Philadelphia it was a watershed event, the likes of which no attorney of the bar could possibly miss.

He likewise could not have been confused regarding the absolute defeat his arguments had in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1804. No, Rawle knew what he was writing was incorrect, but he did it anyway.

I think I know why he did it.

[CpnHook]

Not going to get into Wong Kim Ark with you.

Of course not. I've had to correct you about that case in the past. You just keep repeating the same mistakes. I still suspect at 55 or so pages, the opinion is beyond your capacity to read.

and is in any case, inconsistent with the intentions of the legislature as stated by the Chief Author of the 14th amendment John Bingham.

The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, like its counterpart in the Civil Rights Act, was stated multiple times in the debates to be a declaration of existing law. And statements by multiple legislators indicate that "existing law" reflected the jus soli view. Cong. Lawrence of Ohio, speaking on the CRA citizenship clause, states this clearly:

“This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Wilson's speech, March 1) and by the authorities he has cited. (1 Sharwood's Blackstone, 844; Naturalization Act of April 14, 1802; Act of February 28, 1838; Brightley's Digest, 187; Section 10 of Act of September 4, 1841; Opinions of Attorneys General, vol. 4.. 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, title Denizen; 2 Kent. Comm., 278, note; . . Rawle on Constitution, 80; State ex Manuel, 3[.]

In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all citizens that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” (1 Sandford's Ch. R., 483)

This was the common law of England, and this statute (25 Edward II, St. 2 [] ) was declaratory of th eold common law." Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866)

Do you notice the authorities listed? The Naturalization Act of 1802 (you know, the one St. George Tucker listed as "accordant" with Blackstone), James Kent, William Rawle, and, oh, the "great case of Lynch v. Clarke."

So these very authorities I've been citing, the ones you poo-pooh as the opinion of "later day lawyers" are the very authorities put forth in the 69th Congress as sources for "existing law."

So Justice Gray was spot-on when he construed both the CRA and 14th Amendment as embodying a jus soli principle. Yes, he could have made his already long opinion even longer by pulling in a good amount of legislative history consistent with what I just cited, but to what end? It's really just "piling on" at that point.

Was Bingham saying anything different? No, not when read in context of the larger discussions.

And all of them are little teeny tiny dwarves compared to Madison, Franklin, Wilson, Washington, Jay, Adams, Marshall, etc.

None of whom support your position other than in your mind. Had any of these persons in the least supported a Vattel-oriented view of Article II, Chief Justice Fuller would have seized upon that in his dissent in WKA. But Fuller knew well enough that in making a structured argument, a person can't just pull out stuff that seems "close enough," do a hand wave, and then claim the point been supported. A person who does that isn't to be taken seriously.

You could stand to learn a bit from the Chief Justice. It's why your argument isn't taken seriously. Not even by the Powers that Be at this site.

Your attempt to paint him as bigger than Marshall is even more hilarity.

Hardly. As far as influence on the law both have enormous stature. Legal scholars would have a good time debating who had the greater influence. Given I doubt you've read any of their opinions completely, you are ill-equipped to give informed opinion.

[CpnHook]

Make that 39th Congress in ‘66, not the 69th Congress.

[CpnHook]

Can't summon up enough interest in your delusions (that Washington was Twice born with allegiance to a government) to bother with a response.

Oh, right, my delusions that the "grandfather clause" was added for the benefit of foreign-born patriots (e.g., Hamilton, Wilson) and not for the likes of George Washington -- a "delusion" that seems to be shared by all the Constitutional historians speaking on the topic.

Of course you have no interest when I beat your argument senseless and point out there is NO ONE at the time of the Constitution or beyond who says that the clause was added because otherwise Washington, et al., would not be eligible. You duck and run because you have to.

(that Washington was Twice born with allegiance to a government)

When you have to resort to straw man arguments, it's a sign you're position grows ever more desperate.

I said nothing about "twice born." James Madison suffices as an authority to explain this to you:

" What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain."

So, as I've pointed out to you before, there was understood to be a primary, local allegiance to the American political community and a secondary allegiance to the Crown. The latter was dissolved; the former remained in continuity. The allegiance owing to the Crown was "transferred" to the local society.

So it's a transfer of allegiance; not a re-birth.

[MamaTexan]

Too much stuff to remember anymore.

Okay, I empathize, mostly because I'm the same way...not to mention I've become a slacker when it comes to organizing my notes. :-)

My first impression was that you were looking for an explicit definition of natural born, but the more I thought about it, the more I wondered if you weren't looking for the English / American Law correlation related to denization - the state of legal residency that starts the clock for the naturalization requirement.

In England, denization was under the Monarchy -

Between alien friends, who are temporary subjects, and subjects naturalized or natural born, a species of subjects intermediate is known to the law of England. They are distinguished by the appellation of denizens. The power of denization is a high and incommunicable portion of the prerogative royal. A denizen is received into the nation, like a person who is dropt from the clouds. He may acquire rights, but he cannot inherit them, not even from his own parent: he may transmit rights to his children, who are born after his letters patent of denization; but not to those who were born before.
James Wilson , Collected Works, vol. 2, Lectures on Law

Whereas in America, the authority belonged to the States.

The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
George Tucker

And who does Tucker attribute the 10th Amendment to?

whereby it is expressly declared, that, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, "that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state.
George Tucker

---

If this isn't what you were looking for, keep thinking about it and let me know. :-)

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course not. I've had to correct you about that case in the past.

No you haven't. You are first a liar, and second an idiot.

I'm going to skip whatever it was you wrote after that. Not worth my time to deal with a deliberate and delusional liar.

[DiogenesLamp]

Washington -- a "delusion" that seems to be shared by all the Constitutional historians speaking on the topic.

You need to learn what a fallacy is, then learn about the various common varieties, of which the above is one of them.

You really need to go find some children to argue with. Perhaps they wouldn't notice your malfunctioning logic and reliance on fallacy arguments.

[Fantasywriter]

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’

[Fantasywriter]

‘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.’

Well do you or don’t you advocate anti-Americanism in the WH? We have an anti-American there now. He takes after his father, who despised the US, hated what we stand for, and wanted nothing to do with US citizenship. Do you advocate the type of destruction our anti-American ruler has unleashed on the USA or not?

[Fantasywriter]

‘You really need to go find some children to argue with. Perhaps they wouldn’t notice your malfunctioning logic and reliance on fallacy arguments.’

He told me once that the ‘proof’ that Stanley Ann was in HI during her pregnancy is that ‘her husband, Barack Obama I, would have seen her.’ I.e.: he said Obama Sr. was an eye-witness to her presence, case closed.

Yes, he really said that.

He has no comprehension of the term, ‘logical fallacy,’ and it doesn’t appear that anyone can explain it to him.

Liberalism rots the rational part of the brain. That’s why, as Churchill said, you either give liberalism up by a certain age or you lose your thinking faculties.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is starting to have a more familiar feel, but I was pretty sure I had read something about St George Tucker's notes on Blackstone, and how Blackstone himself even acknowledges something different than the usual take.

I remember at the time that it moved St George Tucker from being sort of "neutral" on the topic, to firmly over into the Jus Sanguinus camp.

I'm not sure it's worth looking for though, the only person here who needs evidence won't believe any when he sees it. I certainly don't feel like putting much effort into arguing with an idiot, and I expect you don't either.

Do you remember Jeff Winston? I remember that clown making a HUGE DEAL out of the fact that James A. Bayard, Jr. wrote a book which he claimed supported his stupid Jus Soli argument. He swore up and down that this was a GREAT EXPERT and was the LAST WORD on the subject.

I pointed out that Bayard's words were not nearly so supportive of Jeff's position as Jeff seemed to believe and he kept on and on an on about Bayard until I finally shut him up.

Turns out he was an idiot, just like I told him.

Remember that? Well we've got another wannabe Jeff, but not so intelligent or resourceful.

[csivils]

“You really need to go find some children to argue with. Perhaps they wouldn’t notice your malfunctioning logic and reliance on fallacy arguments.”

Like a variant of the no-true-scottsman fallacy where if they were a true scottsman, they would agree with your point? Anyone who doesn’t comprehend your “brilliance” must be a child?

You have been given the answer that is established precident by the courts. The fact you don’t agree with that precident... is simply not relevant.