The nbC Eligibility Brainwashing Runs Deep

For some reason people like him are obsessed with False Reality, whether the idiots who are convinced they need no driver’s license, or the whole Vattel thing. I think whatever the underlying mental condition is, it is the same thing that leads to the whole Transgender thing - just pretend long enough, and it will all come true some day. Mental illness at its best.

In the Ted Cruz case, in Pennsylvania the court stated:

Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a "natural born citizen" includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.

It includes Ted Cruz, born in Canada.

I'm going to cross wire your brain here. :)

Supreme Court. Wong Kim Ark. 1898. Paragraph 113.

Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by n abling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

So apparently the Wong court thinks Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen.

Since you slavishly follow what the Courts say, I guess you have a cognitive dissonance problem here. :)

Let me know what you are going to decide that you believe. I'm guessing you are going to regard that part of the Wong court as being wrong, but everything else is correct.

Whatever it takes to allow you to continue believing what you believe.

In his 1916 book “Fear God and take your own part” Theodore Roosevelt wrote that if Arthur were to go to England, he could have been pressed into military service. Clearly Roosevelt knew Arthur had dual citizenship.

Well clearly Teddy is the man whom we should regard as an authority on this topic.

Roosevelt goes on to describe the case of a Mr. LeLong who was born in New Orleans to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien (French citizen) father. In describing Mr. LeLong, Roosevelt wrote “He is eligible to the Presidency of the United States.”

Yeah, Teddy is the guy who knows what he's talking about. He was there in 1787 when the Framers discussed the matter. <>

Sycophant.

“As the judicial branch did not exist at the time of the Framers {who created it}, ...”
You are oh so correct, it must have been 1850’s, ‘40’s ..?

I take it that you count on people reading your posts being as ignorant as they are stupid.

-fJRoberts-

In his 1916 book “Fear God and take your own part” Theodore Roosevelt wrote that if Arthur were to go to England, he could have been pressed into military service. Clearly Roosevelt knew Arthur had dual citizenship.

It appears Chester Arthur was eligible for dual citizenship, meaning that another sovereign could have claimed his allegiance. The United States pays no attention to such claims. It might affect an individual's travel plans, but not his presidential eligibility. Today, an individual may have to be careful about flying into the airspace of a nation that can claim him.

Roosevelt goes on to describe the case of a Mr. LeLong who was born in New Orleans to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien (French citizen) father. In describing Mr. LeLong, Roosevelt wrote “He is eligible to the Presidency of the United States.”

Roosevelt was right. Mr. LeLong was born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction. He became a U.S. citizen at birth. The status of the parents is irrelevant. That France might claim him as a citizen of France makes no difference. If he actually held French citizenship and traveled to France, he could be pressed into the service of France. If he were President or Vice President, that would not apply. When not a dignitary, it might affect his travel plans, but not his presidential eligibility.

Congress did not pass a law requiring two citizen parents. Congress proposed an Amendment to the Constitution. The People ratified the words proposed for ratification. The words that were ratified did not include anything about parents.

People who have been brainwashed into thinking a certain way, cannot help but think that way.

It is good to see you realize your problem and may take remedial action. Good luck.

I want to ask you a legal question.
Suppose someone takes guardianship of a child, and because the child misbehaves, the guardian puts the child in a room to punish them. Also in the room is a pit bull that attacks and gravely injures the child.
Should the guardian be held responsible for what happened to the child?

Yes.

Should the guardian receive some sort of punishment?

I need more information. There may have been mitigating factors. Were you the child?

That Chester Arthur's father was Irish was so well known that a St. Petersburg, Russia correspondent wrote about the alleged Irish citizenship of Chester Arthur in 1881.
You are trying to pull a bait and switch here. The issue is *NOT* that Chester Arthur had an Irish father, it's that his father didn't become a citizen until *AFTER* Chester Arthur was born.
*THAT* is the part that has been attempted to be hidden.

They didn't do a very good job of it if Chester Arthur was claimed by a Russian correspondent to be alien born IRISH. If Chester Arthur was born in either Canada or the United States, how would he have been born IRISH? That could only be if the father's nationality was IRISH at the time of birth. It seems the IRISH citizenship of Chester Arthur's father at the time of birth was known around the world. Certainly by Hinman, anyone who read the Herald or Novoe Vremya, and the Democrat party. Perhaps Chester Arthur as disqualified because William Arthur was distinctly orange.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829. His father, William Arthur, was naturalized 31 August 1843. William Arthur's naturalization date has been a matter of public record since 1843.

Chester Arthur became Vice President and then President in 1881.

It's after 1868, and therefore invalid in understanding natural born citizen.

What magic do you attribute to 1868?

Natural born citizens have not changed since 1776. Natural born has not changed since centuries before that.

You have to use evidence from the Framing era. Crap from the time period *AFTER* Rawle misled everyone is useless.

Nonsense.

Moreover, your 2024 active imagination is the only authority for your silly claims.

First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee, 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502, paragraph 40, footnotes omitted:

“Simply put, subjective good faith no longer provides the safe harbor it once did.” “There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11.”

Since you slavishly follow what the Courts....

That seems preferable to just making crap up, going to jail, or being laughed out of court, or just making a fool of oneself. YMMV.

Supreme Court. Wong Kim Ark. 1898. Paragraph 113.

The correct citation is 169 U.S. 649, 702-703. The paragraphs are not numbered. Apparently you prefer to use and cite some unofficial copy with some special sauce added.

Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by n abling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

There was no person born outside the jurisdiction involved in Wong Kim Ark. As that issue was not before the Court, it was not decided by the Court. The comment about persons born out of the jurisdiction of the United States is dictum, not holding.

A person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, has his birth citizenship regulated by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment has no relevance to any birth outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States.

A person born outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States has his birth citizenship regulated by the applicable Federal law in effect at the time of his birth. All such births since 1952 are regulated by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended. None are regulated by whatever Federal law was in effect in 1898. Whatever the 1898 Federal law was, it did not apply to Ted Cruz.

The law makes perfectly clear that naturalization confers citizenship subsequent to birth. Anything that confers citizenship at birth is not naturalization.

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2021/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-i/sec-1101/

8 U.S.C. 1101; Definitions

(23) The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030101.html

c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth:
Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)

- - - - -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e ) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)

https://npg.si.edu/blog/chester-arthur-birthplace-controversy-1880

Chester Arthur: A Birthplace Controversy, 1880

Smithsonian

In his work Chester A. Arthur: A Quarter-Century of Machine Politics, biographer George Frederick Howe writes of an accusation cast upon Chester Alan Arthur before the election of 1880, in which Arthur was vice presidential candidate and James A. Garfield’s running mate:
If in 1881 the American public was fairly well informed about Chester A. Arthur’s earliest years, it was because of an interesting hoax. A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, startled the voters of the country shortly after the election of 1880 by interviews in which he accused General Arthur of being a British subject. To support the claim, he presented an elaborate story of Arthur’s birth, purporting to show that he had been born in Canada, of a British father and an American mother. The enterprising New York Sun investigated Hinman’s tale and published a complete refutation the day after Arthur took the oath as President. His origins were widely understood when he became the twenty-first President of the United States.
Had Hinman’s tale been true, Arthur would have been ineligible to run for the United States executive office.

https://reason.com/2012/05/19/chester-arthur-and-the-original-birther/

The following story appeared in the New York Times of Dec. 22, 1880:
MATERIAL FOR A DEMOCRATIC LIE
ST. ALBANS, Vt., Dec. 21.—A stranger arrived here a few days ago, and registered at the American House as A. P. Hinman, of New-York. Since then he has been very busy in the adjoining town of Fairfield, ostensibly collecting materials for a biography of Vice-President-elect Arthur. He has privately stated to leading Democratic citizens, however, that he is employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to show that Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner. He claims to have discovered that Gen. Arthur was born in Canada, instead of Fairfield; that his name is Chester Allen instead of Chester Abell [sic]; that he was 50 years old in July instead of October, as has been stated, and generally that he is an alien and ineligible to the office of Vice-President.
Arthur Hinman would publish a book, How A British Subject Became President of the United States, the substance of which was related in a Brooklyn Daily Eagle article dated June 2, 1884:
The main charge of the book is that William Chester Alan Arthur was born in Dunham Flats, Canada, on [sic] March, 1828, and that he represented himself to have been born at North Fairfield, Vermont, the birthplace of a younger brother, Chester Abell Arthur, who was born in 1830, and died a year later. It is stated that in 1834 when another son was born he received the name of William Arthur, Jr., and then the name William was dropped by William Chester Alan Arthur, and he was henceforth known as Chester Alan Arthur. The records, copies of which are given, show that in 1845 Chester Alan Arthur entered Union College, stating his age to be 16.
Reeves dismisses Hinman's theory, while admitting that President Arthur lied about his age. He cites the Arthur family Bible, held at the Library of Congress, which gives the President's year of birth as 1829, and makes no mention of a child named "Chester Abell."

Mentally irregular. This nonsense helped contribute to the election of Barack Obama in 2008. They aren’t driving, they are traveling. Birthers and travelers have about the same batting average in court. Sovereign citizens/travelers get more Youtube videos. The income tax frauds are more of the same. Wesley Snipes went to prison. And then there are the flat earthers. I’m glad not to have been of this generation. I don’t know how I would have handled pregnancy. How did I survive without tampons in the men’s room? I can hardly keep up with the progress. Finally the government showed diversity, our strength. Admiral Rachel Levine, Sam Brinton, Pete Buttigieg, Karine Jean Pierre, Alejandro Mayorkas. Drag queens in the military. Equity. And Janet Yellen has a plan to reduce the debt from 133T to 155T, a serious reduction compared to what it would be if not for the reduction plan.

Supreme Court. Wong Kim Ark. 1898. Paragraph 113.

The correct citation is 169 U.S. 649, 702-703. The paragraphs are not numbered. Apparently you prefer to use and cite some unofficial copy with some special sauce added.

The Wong Kim Ark court of 1898 was not deciding the citizenship of anyone on the basis of Federal law ever or on the basis of Federal law in 1970 in particular.

Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by n abling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

There was no person born outside the jurisdiction involved in Wong Kim Ark. As that issue was not before the Court, it was not decided by the Court. The comment about persons born out of the jurisdiction of the United States is dictum, not holding.

A person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, has his birth citizenship regulated by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment has no relevance to any birth outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States. Wong Kim Ark was born within the territory, and all born within the territory are born within the jurisdiction, i.e. subject to our laws, except for those with immunity, such as accredited diplomats or dignitaries.

A person born outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States has his birth citizenship regulated by the applicable Federal law in effect at the time of his birth. All such births since 1952 are regulated by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended. None are regulated by whatever Federal law was in effect in 1898. Whatever the 1898 Federal law was, it did not apply to Ted Cruz.

The law makes perfectly clear that naturalization confers citizenship subsequent to birth. Anything that confers citizenship at birth is not naturalization.

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2021/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-i/sec-1101/

8 U.S.C. 1101; Definitions

(23) The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030101.html

c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth:
Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)

- - - - -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e ) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)

Suppose someone takes guardianship of a child, and because the child misbehaves, the guardian puts the child in a room to punish them. Also in the room is a pit bull that attacks and gravely injures the child.

Should the guardian be held responsible for what happened to the child?

Yes.

Good. I agree.

Now that we've established the principle as correct, how do we apply it to Officials who put men in prison where they are raped?

My bringing up this hypothetical scenario is to demonstrate how once again the legal system is inconsistent and dysfunctional.

And why now? Someone mentioned to me the other day that a certain person had been raped in prison. I reiterated my long held position that this should *NEVER* happen, and anyone who lets this happen should be in prison themselves.

But that's not how our legal system works, is it?

They didn't do a very good job of it if Chester Arthur was claimed by a Russian correspondent to be alien born IRISH.

I'm pretty sure most Americans had no knowledge or understanding of what some Russian guy wrote overseas.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829. His father, William Arthur, was naturalized 31 August 1843. William Arthur's naturalization date has been a matter of public record since 1843.

As you have posted proof of this, I guess it must be so, but the fact that it is a public record doesn't mean the public knew about it, or for that matter, Government officials.

What magic do you attribute to 1868?

Congress mucking about with (naturalized) citizenship for slaves and screwing up everyone's understanding subsequently.

And with states that would never vote for this being held under military control by the government in Washington DC.

Amendments that were created by Militarily imposed Vichy governments are not valid amendments in my thinking.

The correct citation is 169 U.S. 649, 702-703. The paragraphs are not numbered. Apparently you prefer to use and cite some unofficial copy with some special sauce added.

The link I gave you was to Cornell, and one might expect some degree of competence from such an entity.

The comment about persons born out of the jurisdiction of the United States is dictum, not holding.

Well I knew that was going to be your answer. It allows you to believe two contradictory things at the same time.

That the court was "ex cathedra" infallible in their holding, but full of sh*t in their "dicta." :)

Apparently these Judges whom you think are so significant on what you wish to believe, are some sort of imbeciles on the parts you don't like.

Like I said, the Wong Court would rule Ted Cruz as a naturalized citizen.

Indeed, had congress passed no laws to make him into a citizen, he never would have become one.

Mentally irregular. This nonsense helped contribute to the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

Yeah, the constant media hyping of this no talent hack had nothing to do with him getting elected. His voters were those people who were upset with others questioning whether he was born in Kenya like he said he was.

Arthur born in 1829 to a father who was a British subject would have automatically been a British subject under British law.

I suspect that this would be the case even had his father naturalized as a US citizen before Arthur’s birth. England still recognized perpetual allegiance until 1870.

Now that we've established the principle as correct, how do we apply it to Officials who put men in prison where they are raped?
My bringing up this hypothetical scenario is to demonstrate how once again the legal system is inconsistent and dysfunctional.

As I understand it, the typical prisoner is innocent and is working on his appeal. He is a misunderstood youth who was on the cusp of turning his life around when the justice system jumped up and grabbed him.

The only time the misunderstood youth is in contact with the Judicial branch is when he is in the court. When in custodial care, he is guest of the Executive branch. Why some of the alpha males develop a sudden interest in exploring their alternative sexual desires in prison I do not know. I suppose the system could afford each and every one a secure, locked suite of his own, but then there would be a lawsuit for cruel and unusual punishment, and emotional distress. As an alternative we could have the courts declare all the prisons unfit and release the entire prison population onto the street. Looking at our southern border, one may see other countries releasing their prison populations and residents of their insane asylums onto our streets. That brings back memories of Jimmah Carter inviting Castro to release all his political prisoners to America.

Trouble seems to come with the company some people keep. The prison population is not the most desirable. Staying out of prison would be good. The judges only pass sentence, they do not run or supervise the prisons. Do you suggest they do away with prison sentences? Should prisons only accept persons of good moral character? Do you have some solution in mind?

Yeah, the constant media hyping of this no talent hack had nothing to do with him getting elected. His voters were those people who were upset with others questioning whether he was born in Kenya like he said he was.

Many people did not want to be associated with the taint of those who shovel that crap. Some just have an aversion to being associated with insanity.

Arthur born in 1829 to a father who was a British subject would have automatically been a British subject under British law.

Chester Arthur was born to a father who was British subject and an Irish citizen. Born in Vermont, it did not matter what was the status of his parents.

That the British could claim him as a subject make no difference. If the British could pass a British law claiming all white persons born in its former colonies were subjects of the king, would that make all white people born in the former colonies ineligible for the Presidency?

I'm pretty sure most Americans had no knowledge or understanding of what some Russian guy wrote overseas.

I am pretty sure I quoted it as translated and sent to the Herald. The Herald used to be the largest circulation daily newpaper in the United States. The Herald was the best known American newspaper in Europe.

I quoted "Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner," as published in the New York Times, Dec. 22, 1880.

The substance of Hinman's book was published in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 2, 1884 while Chester Arthur was still in office. Hinman's book quoted the story. Brooklyn is the home of the largest Russian community in the United States.

Amendments that were created by Militarily imposed Vichy governments are not valid amendments in my thinking.

That's nice. I guess black's cannot vote, the Bill of Rights is not enforceable against the States, and you really should pass on your insight to the Trump defense regarding 14A not being valid. Your honor, 14A is invalid. DiogenesLamp said so on FR.

The link I gave you was to Cornell, and one might expect some degree of competence from such an entity.

The official copy is published in U.S. Reports. It has no paragraph numbers. It has page numbers. As a government published official copy of the actual court opinion, it is authoritative and citable.

That the court was "ex cathedra" infallible in their holding, but full of sh*t in their "dicta." :)

Their passing comments (dicta) are not holdings and do not create precedent, whether right or wrong. Holdings, which result from the court deciding relevant issues presented and fully argued to the Court, create precedent. Dicta may be informative in the absence of contrary holdings.

Like I said, the Wong Court would rule Ted Cruz as a naturalized citizen.

The Wong Kim Ark did not even consider the case of Ted Cruz.

Citing Wong Kim Ark as authority, the Court in Elliott v. Cruz, Cmmw Ct Pa, 77 MD 2016 (10 March 2016) held that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of the United States.

[*1]

No. 77 M.D. 2016

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BEFORE: HONORABLE SENIOR JUDGE DAN PELLEGRINI.

OPINION NOT REPORTED

OPINION BY Senior Judge DAN PELLEGRINI.

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI

FILED: March 10, 2016

Before this Court is a petition to set aside the nomination petition of Ted Cruz (Candidate), pursuant to which he seeks to appear on the April 26, 2016 primary election ballot for the Office of the President of the United States of America, filed by Carmon Elliott (Objector), a registered Republican who resides and votes in Pennsylvania, asserting that the Candidate is ineligible to hold that office under the United States Constitution.

The parties have stipulated that the Candidate was born on December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada; that his mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born on November 23, 1934, in the State of Delaware; that his mother is and has always has been a United States citizen, since the moment of her birth; that at the time of

[*2]

the Candidate's birth, his mother had been physically present in the United States for more than ten years of her life, including at least five years after she reached the age of fourteen; and that the Candidate was a citizen from the moment of his birth.

Because the Candidate was born in Canada, Petitioner contends that Candidate's name should be stricken from the Pennsylvania 2016 primary ballot because he is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1,¹ clause 5 of the United States Constitution.

____________________

¹ The entire text of Article II, Section 1 provides:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and
[*3]
Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1.
The Twelfth Amendment further provides:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives

[*4]

I.

A.

Initially, the Candidate contends that we should not address the question of whether he is a “natural born citizen” because it presents a nonjusticiable political question. He contends that this doctrine applies because the question of whether a candidate is eligible to take office as President of the United States is within the purview of the Electoral College or the United States Congress.

The political question doctrine is invoked only when the framers of the Constitution made clear their intention that the judiciary abstain from resolving

____________________

shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.--The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
U.S. CONST. amend. XII.

[*5]

a particular question of constitutional interpretation. In Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, the United States Supreme Court addressed this doctrine, stating that:

In general, the Judiciary has a responsibility to decide cases properly before it, even those it “would gladly avoid.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821). Our precedents have identified a narrow exception to that rule, known as the “political question” doctrine. See, e.g., Japan Whaling Assn. v. American Cetacean Soc., 478 U.S. 221, 230, 106 S.Ct. 2860, 92 L.Ed.2d 166 (1986). We have explained that a controversy “involves a political question ... where there is ‘a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.’” Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 228, 113 S.Ct. 732, 122 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962)). In such a case, we have held that a court lacks the authority to decide the dispute before it.

––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1421, 1427, 182 L.Ed.2d 423 (2012) ; see also Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962); Sweeney v. Tucker, 473 Pa. 493, 375 A.2d 698 (1977).

The political question doctrine should not be invoked then unless it is clear that a court is incapable of rendering a decision because it would otherwise be plainly inconsistent with Marbury v. Madison's basic assumption that the Constitution is judicially declarable law. 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).

[*6]

B.

The touchstone in determining whether the political question doctrine applies is whether the resolution of the question has been textually committed to one or the other political branches of the federal government. To glean whether the Framers textually committed to Congress the issue of a person's eligibility to serve as President, the Court turns to Article II, Section 1, clauses 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution as originally adopted, as well as the Twelfth Amendment,² which set forth the procedure by which a person was elected to the office of President of the United States. These provisions:

1. vested in the legislatures of the several states, not Congress, the power to “appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled.”
2. commanded the electors, once selected, to meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, and then to transmit their votes to the nation's seat of government.

____________________

² The Twelfth Amendment changed the Electoral College's voting procedure, requiring each elector to cast two ballots: one expressly for President and the other distinctly for Vice President. It reaffirmed Congress's role in counting the ballots, merely revising the procedure to be followed in case none of the candidates obtained a majority of electoral votes. It also added the language, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice–President of the United States.”

³U.S. CONST. amend. XII. None of these provisions evidences a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue of Presidential eligibility to Congress.

[*7]

3. commanded, upon receipt, the President of the Senate to open the ballots and count the votes in the presence of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
4. provide that only in the case of a tie, or the absence of a majority, does the Constitution allow Congress to choose the President and Vice President.

As can be seen, the Constitution does not vest the Electoral College with power to determine the eligibility of a Presidential candidate since it only charges the embers of the Electoral College to select a candidate for President and then transmit their votes to the nation's “seat of government.” U.S. CONST. amend. XII.

Likewise, Congress has no control over the process by which the President and Vice President are normally chosen, other than the very limited one of determining the day on which the electors were to “give their votes.” U.S. CONST. amend. XII. Moreover, this Constitutional design clearly served to insulate the Presidential election process from—not to commit it to—Congress and potential interference. This is evident because the Constitution also decreed that members of Congress may not serve as presidential electors.

Comparison of the provisions regarding Presidential eligibility with those regarding the eligibility of members of Congress further supports this conclusion. With respect to the latter, the Constitution provides that “[e]ach house [of Congress] shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members,” including whether they have the requisite U.S. citizenship required for service in the house to which the person has been elected. U.S. CONST. art. I, §

[8]

5, cl. 1; see also U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 2 ; U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 3. No one, then, can serve in Congress without satisfying its internally enforced membership rules.⁴ Significantly, no Constitutional provision places such power in Congress to determine Presidential eligibility. Moreover, other than setting forth the bare argument, the Candidate offers no further support for the contrary proposition.

Accordingly, under Article I, Section 1, once the electoral votes are counted and a Presidential candidate has won a majority of the electoral votes, the Constitution does not expressly vest any entity of the federal government with the power to ensure that only persons who are constitutionally eligible will exercise the vital executive power vested in the President. Any one may serve as President so long as he or she has won a majority of the electoral vote, unless held in check by the law of our Constitution as applied by the judicial branch. This analysis shows that determination of the eligibility of a person to serve as President has not been textually committed to Congress.

C.

As to whether the issue is non-justiciable because it is beyond judicial competence due to a lack of standards to apply, the issue of American citizenship,

____________________

⁴ As a general rule, then, no one can serve in Congress without satisfying the internally enforced membership rules, but even this concept has its limits. In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969), the United States Supreme Court rejected an argument that the case ought to be dismissed as presenting a political question. The Court concluded, in a case involving the refusal of the House of Representatives to seat Adam Clayton Powell, that the decision to exclude members was not textually committed to the House—with the exception of the criteria identified in Article I, Section 5 relating to age, citizenship, and state residency. Since the refusal to seat Powell was based on a determination that Powell had acted unethically prior to his election, the Court found the exclusion not authorized by Article I and ordered Powell's seating.

[*9]

including that of a natural born citizen, has been decided, albeit in other contexts, without difficulty in applying the standards. See, e.g., Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 423, 118 S.Ct. 1428, 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).*652 In Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese man born in America to a father and mother, both of whom were Chinese citizens domiciled in the United States, claimed that he was a citizen by birth, not subject to the Chinese exclusion laws. In addressing the merits of his argument, the Supreme Court's analysis began with an exposition of the English common law and a survey on the cases and legal treatises addressing the subject. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655–58, 18 S.Ct. at 459–60. The Court then reviewed early American authorities which, it concluded, supported the view that American judges, federal and state, had applied the English rule. Id. 169 U.S. at 658–66, 18 S.Ct. at 460–63. The Court held:

there are none that can constrain or permit the judiciary to refuse to give full effect to the peremptory and explicit language of the [F]ourteenth [A]mendment, which declares and ordains that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Id. 169 U.S. at 694, 18 S.Ct. at 474.

Most recently, the Supreme Court applied standards to find that the “Eighth Amendment prohibits certain punishments as a categorical matter. No natural born citizen may be denaturalized.” Hall v. Florida, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 1992,

[*10]

188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014). Plainly, this rule could never be applied if the question of natural born citizen were a nonjusticiable political question.

Because there is neither textually demonstrable constitutional commitment entrusting the determination of a person's eligibility to be President to the Electoral College or Congress nor a lack of a judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue, the political question doctrine does not apply in this case. As such, the Court will proceed to address the merits of the claim.

D.

Article II, Section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution provides:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President[.]

U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4.

The Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen,” nor was it discussed during the debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the Supreme Court of the United States has never addressed its meaning within the specific context of a challenge to the eligibility of a candidate. Because of the

[*11]

paucity of both constitutional history and legal precedent, the meaning of a “natural born citizen” has been the subject of much dispute.

The framework for addressing who is natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II, Section 1 centers on the circumstances of one's birth. Here, Objector contends that a person must be born within the geographical boundaries of the United States to fall within the definition and suggests that this Court interpret Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as requiring Jus soli (“law of the soil”) citizenship—that is, citizenship vested in a person based on the location of his or her birth, regardless of the parents' citizenship status. Conversely, the Candidate contends that one is a natural born citizen, regardless if born outside of the United States, where one of his parents is a United States citizen, thereby vesting him with citizenship at birth. This type of citizenship is known as Jus sanguinis (“law of the blood”) citizenship and inheres in a person based on his ancestry.

This uncertainty has led to questions of eligibility to hold that office each time a person who runs for President is not born on American soil or, for that matter, is born on American soil to non-citizens. It was argued that Republican nominee Charles Evans Hughes, who was born in the United States to non-citizen parents, was not a natural born citizen. Breckinridge Long, Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution?, 49 CHI. LEGAL NEWS 146 (1916). When Senator John McCain ran for President in 2008, arguments were made that he was not a natural born citizen because he was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to

[*12]

a U.S. citizen parent. Gabriel J. Chin, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, 107 MICH. L. REV. First Impressions 1, app. A at 19–21 (2008). Governor George Romney's eligibility for the Presidency was also questioned because was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents. Isidor Blum, Is Gov. George Romney Eligible to Be President?, N.Y.L.J., Oct. 16, 1967, at 1. Aside from the “birther's” belief that he was not born in the United States, President Obama's eligibility was challenged on the basis that even if he was born in Hawaii, he was not a “natural born citizen” because his father was not a U.S. citizen.

Charles Gordon, then the General Counsel of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, attempted to answer this question. See Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: the Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. 1 (1968). He followed the United States Supreme Court's suggestion that because “[t]he Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens[,] [r]esort must be had elsewhere,” namely to common law existing at the time of the Founding Fathers to ascertain the meaning based on reference to the nomenclature with which they were familiar. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1874) (suggesting this approach to interpretation but ultimately not reaching the issue).

Having surveyed most of the common law in effect at the time the Constitution was adopted, as well as other historical, statutory, and constitutional sources, Gordon concluded that:

[*13]

1. The reference to “natural-born” in the presidential qualification clause must be considered in the light of the English usage, well known to the Framers of the Constitution. The English common law, particularly as it had been declared or modified by statute, accorded full status as natural-born subjects to persons born abroad to British subjects.
2. Although the evidence of intent is slender, it seems likely that the natural born qualification was intended only to exclude those who were not born American citizens, but acquired citizenship by naturalization. The Framers were well aware of the need to assure full citizenship rights to the children born to American citizens in foreign countries. Their English forebears had made certain that the rights of such children were protected, and it is hardly likely that the Framers intended to deal less generously with their own children. The evidence, although not overwhelming, unquestionably points in the direction of such generosity.
3. This gloss of prior history and usage is not dulled, I believe, by the Naturalization Act of 1790 or by the fourteenth amendment. The 1790 act, enacted soon after the Constitutional Convention, recognized such persons as natural-born citizens. The fourteenth amendment, adopted primarily to confirm the full citizenship denied to Negroes by the Dred Scott decision, did not refer to “natural-born” citizens, did not purport to limit or define the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution, and did not, in my estimation, bar a construction of that clause to include children born abroad to American parents.

Gordon, supra, at 31–32. Gordon admitted, though, that the evidence for his conclusion is not overwhelming, and that his research only “points in the direction” of his ultimate conclusions. Id. at 32.

[*14]

Recently, the Congressional Research Service (CRS)⁵ reached the same conclusion in its January 2016 report,⁶ by which it updated its 2011 report authored by Jack Maskell, entitled “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement.” Jack Maskell, Cong. Research Serv., R42097, Qualifications for President and the “natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement (2011). The original report was apparently prompted by continuing questions regarding the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” arising out of Senator McCain's 2008 candidacy. It contains an exhaustive analysis of the historical and legal background, both common law and statutory, on this issue. The summary of that report states, in relevant part:

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander–in–Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without longstanding loyalty to the nation. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

__________

⁵ The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress which works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and members of both the House and Senate.
⁶ Jack Maskell, Cong. Research Serv., R42097, Qualifications for President and The “natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement (2016), available at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/295658863/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-BornCitizenship-Eligibility-Requirement-Congressional-Research-Service-R42097-2016#scribd.

[*15]

In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).

[16]

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

Id. at Summary (unnumbered).

Moreover, Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, both former Solicitor Generals of the United States, arrived at the same conclusion in a more succinct manner, determining that a U.S. citizen at birth is a natural born citizen and constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Paul Clement & Neal Katyal, On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen,” 128 Harv. L.Rev. 161 (2015). They reason, in relevant part:⁷

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” [U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.] All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.

____________________

⁷ For convenience, the citations contained in footnotes were placed in the body of the text.

[*17]

And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States. [See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012) ; Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub.L. No. 82–414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub.L. No. 73–250, 48 Stat. 797.]
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law [See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S.Ct. 564, 31 L.Ed. 508 (1888) ] and enactments of the First Congress. [See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239 (1888).] Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children. [See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).] These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects ... to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.” [7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708); see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.] The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone's Commentaries [See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63], a text widely

[*18]

circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.
No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790, Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795), provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States....” [Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted).]
The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents. [See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural–Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L.Rev. 349, 371 (2000/01).]
The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth. [See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.] The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at

[*19]

some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”
The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers' purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:
[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a ... strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
[Letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 25, 1787), in 3 The Records of The Federal Convention of 1787.]
As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut [ ] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[ ] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.” [3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on The Constitution of The United States § 1473, at 333 (1833).] The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay's own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude

[*20]

his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility. [See Michael Nelson, Constitutional Qualifications for President, 17 Presidential Stud. Q. 383, 396 (1987).]
While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. [See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, WALL ST. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM).] Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
* * * *
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent—whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone—is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.

Id. at 161–64.

[*21]

Others have made the case that to be a natural born citizen under Article II, Section 1, one must be born in the United States, except in certain instances. Mary McManamon, Professor of Law at Widener University School of Law, criticized the scholarship of those cited above and many more, citing provisions of English common law, “statements by early American jurists,” and selected passages from Blackstone, for the proposition that in the eyes of the Framers, a presidential candidate must be born in the United States. Mary McManamon, The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood, 64 CATH. U.L. REV. 317, 343 (2015). She concludes that aside from children born to U.S. ambassadors or soldiers in hostile armies, all natural-born citizens must be born in the United States. Undoubtedly, this is a minority view among legal scholars.

Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a “natural born citizen” includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.

Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States, and the objection filed by Carmon Elliott to the Nomination Petition of Ted Cruz is denied.

/s/

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

- - - - - - - - -

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carmon ELLIOTT, Petitioner
v.
Ted CRUZ, Respondent.

No. 77 M.D. 2016

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 10th day of March, 2016, the petition to set aside the nomination of Ted Cruz as a Candidate for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States is denied. The Secretary of the Commonwealth is directed to certify the name of Ted Cruz to the proper officials for inclusion on the ballot of the Republican Primary to be held on April 26, 2016. Each party is to bear its own costs.

As I understand it, the typical prisoner is innocent and is working on his appeal. He is a misunderstood youth who was on the cusp of turning his life around when the justice system jumped up and grabbed him.

All the more reason why *THE STATE* should not countenance or condone the rape of prisoners in their custody.

I suppose the system could afford each and every one a secure, locked suite of his own, but then there would be a lawsuit for cruel and unusual punishment, and emotional distress. As an alternative we could have the courts declare all the prisons unfit and release the entire prison population onto the street.

Facetiousness is a dodge of the issue.

The judges only pass sentence, they do not run or supervise the prisons.

Like the Nazis, who claimed they bear no responsibility because they were merely following orders.

I reject their excuse, and I reject the excuse that Judges have no other choice. They are part of the system causing these very unjust outcomes. They are in fact accomplices to crime against people held by the state.

Do you suggest they do away with prison sentences?

I suggest they do not allow prisoners to be raped. How this is accomplished may be a matter of discussion, but the end goal should be that this cannot happen in state custody.

Should prisons only accept persons of good moral character?

Many a true word is said in jest. I think the fundamental problem of crime is that people had not been taught proper morals when they were young.

Thanks to other idiot courts, the State no longer recognizes the need for a just and moral society, and the courts have done everything possible to undermine any effort to steer people in a moral direction.

Do you have some solution in mind?

I have ideas, but they would have to be analyzed further to see if there is anything wrong with them.

My methodology has always been to get everyone to recognize the problem, then brainstorm ideas that might become answers.

Many people did not want to be associated with the taint of those who shovel that crap.

It is only now considered a "taint" because the media liars have trained everyone to think that way.

They immediately tried to accuse anyone asking about Obama's claims of being born in Kenya as a *RACIST*. And we all know how cowardly is the Republican milquetoast rinos when it comes to being accused of racism. They will fight their own people just to show everyone how non-racist they are.

They care so much about virtue signaling how non racist they are that they don't mind the country going into the dumpster because the Democrats nominated a no-accomplishment con man to be President, if it means they can show how non-racist they are.

So yeah, the media liars created the taint, the Republican backstabbing brigade started amplifying the media lies, and many became convinced they really believed that asking Obama where he was born was racist, and so they started attacking anyone asking the question.

I think this is probably also a large part of why they hate Trump so much. He had the gall to ask that two bit poverty pimp about his birth certificate.

Some just have an aversion to being associated with insanity.

Or anything the media tells them will not go over very well at cocktail parties.