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.
Howdy back!
Isn't that what we've been saying all along? And now we have Story saying it? Good. Another slap at CpnKook's house of cards.
Agreed. Good to see you all once again! I also noticed rxsid has made an appearance on a certain thread of which you are all aware. :)
Thanks for pointing out rxsid posts, I have to catch up on my reading!
Indeed it is. I can see justification for both sides of the Snug Harbor case. On one hand, New York changed hands once, then changed back again, leaving a very narrow window for being born on British soil. With Inglis not being certain of when he was born, it muddied the waters rather nicely.
They really had no choice but to find as they did because they couldn't prove he wasn't entitled to become a citizen.
On the other, I can see Story's view, too. If it's one thing the Founders were sticklers for, it was procedure. Intent was used to gauge the action, it wasn't an action in itself.
Inglis had plenty of time to make his intentions for claiming citizenship known, so it was his action to take to be recognized as one. The fact he didn't seem all that interested in it until an inheritance became involved seems rather shady, too....IMO.
That is a fascinating connection. If any further evidence were needed that Vattel was uppermost in the Framers’ minds, this is it. Thanks for taking the time to spell that out.
Well to be clear I’m glad J. Winston threw in the towel as well. He was not an honest debater, and he was, for a while anyway, obsessed. So I wasn’t suggesting he was missed. It’s just that he didn’t festoon every single post with childish, imbecilic Fogbow-style insults, which amounts to something in light of the current mindlessly-obsessed Obot.
But no, I haven’t spent half a nanosecond missing Jeff; he added nothing of substance to the discussion.
As a result, they founded the new nation on "natural law." They even said so.
OK. So what? Natural law was a foundation for Lord Coke's opinion in Calvin's Case. See Price, Polly, "Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin's Case (1608)," Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, Art. 2 (1997). Link Blackstone's views on natural law heavily influenced the Founders and Framers. See Schmidt, Kent, "Blackstone's View of Natural Law and Its Influence on the Formation of American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution" Link
The moment you see "natural law" you equate it with "citizen parents." That isn't the case. Natural law underlies the jus soli principle which came to the Framers through Coke, Blackstone and the ECL.
The rest of your post is a whole lot of assertion without argument and rightly ignored.
Right. See prior post. Natural law underlay much of Blackstone's writing as well as Lord Coke's jus soli analysis in Calvin's Case.
But nice attempt to deflect the topic after I had to twice rub your nose in the part of Tucker where he clearly indicates U.S. law is accordant with Blackstone's jus soli principle.
Sharswood's Blackstone is cited in 1866 by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, among a host of authorities listed, to illustrate the existing law in the U.S. recognized the English jus soli principle.
This was during the debate on the citizenship clause of the Civil Rights Act. It was stated repeatedly (as was true of the 14th Amendment) that the clause is simply declaratory of existing law. (Excerpt is from Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866).
You need to read the Constitution again.
A reference is not a source. Please provide a clickable link or a specific copy & paste webpage.
LOL. Your reading comprehension on legal matters is abysmal.
That quote addresses the situation arising during the period the British occupied New York. There was no American government then in place to which the parents would be deemed to owe even temporary allegiance. (See Calvin's Case). So under those circumstances, a child born to British parents would be born a British subject.
But in the period where New York was under American jurisdiction, Story indicates he would be born a U.S. citizen (despite his British-subject parents). Because under those circumstances his parents would be deemed to owe an allegiance to the sovereign holding jurisdiction.
And note the majority opinion determined that John Ingliss was born a citizen: ""I shall therefore answer the second question in the affirmative -- that is that he was entitled to inherit as a citizen, born of the State of New York."
There you have a direct jus soli application. And there you have a majority opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Marshall. So Joseph Story is still very much in my camp. That's why his concurring opinion is quoted by Horace Gray in WKA. (You would have known that if you had read Gray's opinion).)
What would you do if you couldn’t project onto others what you are doing yourself? You love to accuse others of evasion and deflection. Yet for days I have been responding to *your* original post to *me* with an immanently pertinent question about jus soli. You refuse to answer. I.e.: what you accuse others of is what you’re actually doing.
Here is the question. In light of all that you have written about jus soli, is Cruz eligible to be POTUS?
It’s not a difficult question. It is an important question, engendered by your own comments re: jus soli. What is it about this simple question that makes it impossible for you to answer?
Still waiting for an answer to this post:
Hook: ‘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.’
Me: 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?
I was wondering how long it would take you to make that point.
If I see a massive wall of text, I'll peruse a sentence or two, and if it looks like it's going in a stupid direction, I just don't bother. You keep making rehashed points which have been knocked down dozens of times, and some of us are just fed up with repeating ourselves.
The moment you see "natural law" you equate it with "citizen parents." That isn't the case. Natural law underlies the jus soli principle which came to the Framers through Coke, Blackstone and the ECL.
Silly boy. I am fully aware that the Monarchy had it's own version of "Natural Law." Their version of "Natural Law" was that the King was empowered by God to rule over the rest, and it was his divine right to do so.
The philosophers of the time were quite aware that the supporters of monarchy also claimed "natural law" as their basis, but they made a very great distinction between the arguments of Kings, and their own "Rights of man" arguments. You should read up on Samuel Rutherford, one of the few philosophers actually mentioned in the Notes on the Convention. (US Constitutional Convention.) It is not a coincidence that the authorities burned his books and accused him of high treason. :)
Obviously the founders didn't follow the Monarchy version of "natural law", or else we would still be ruled by the British Monarchy.
What, giving up on Story? I seem to recall seeing some St. George Tucker writings that you wouldn't like either, but i'm not going to go to a whole lot of trouble to find them. I'll bet i've got them bookmarked, but my forest of bookmarks is now too big to manage.
I expect someone will stumble across them again directly.
As for that "natural law" stuff, you are treating the Monarchy's version of it as if it was *OUR* version of it.
Sure, if you accept the Premise that the King is put there by God, then all the rest follows. Born to be the King's servant? Check. Perpetual allegiance? Check. Yup, it all follows from your base assumptions. But if you change the assumptions, what then follows?
Now what was Blackstone again? Wasn't he a British Subject?
I can see him leaning towards favoring the Monarchy.
Blah blah blah. This is what we call "Spin Control." You are so badly stomped on that point, you can't do anything better than say "Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Story just beat the ever living dog Sh*t out of your claim. Again, you forget there were 100,000 Children born In the United States to British Loyalists before the treaty of Paris. Guess what nationality they were?
Take a guess.
Take a *WILD* guess.
Any ideas?
Any at all?
I know, I know, it's coming to you.
Perhaps you need a hint?
Just a teeny little one?
So what do you think?
???????????????????????????????
Nah, they were British.
But thanks for playing.
The subject of whether jus soli or jus sanguinis applies to the United States came up in a debate in the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 1789, when “The Father of the Constitution” Congressman James Madison said: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.
It will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
Drawing from Max Farand’s Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, historian George Bancroft characterized the debate on qualifications for the Presidency in his “History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States” (1884) (Volume 1 Page 346):
“One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last to be decided. On the twenty-second of August the committee of detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion and for the first time required that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. 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 the of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president,’ and for the foreign-born proposed a reduction of the requisite years of residence to fourteen. On the seventh of September, the modification, with the restriction as to the age of the president, was unanimously adopted.”
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.