Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
The evidence of which is only your word for it.
Which was, rather, my point.
-----
Would you rather be stuck on wrong, stubbornly denying reality? Or would you rather know the truth, and be on the side of the truth?
I'd rather have someone give me the courtesy of presenting their evidence like an adult, not dancing about attempting to play some type of childish, demented 'gotcha' game.
And wipe off that projectionist brush of yours. You're confusing fear with utter disgust.
ping, in case you missed this huge weekend thread where all the usual NBC suspects have turned up plus some new ones...
I honestly didn’t expect I would this many replies to the thread. I’m impressed.
You can make some positive comments concerning Romney but he is without question a liberal.
I never claimed that. You need to take a class in reading comprehension.
Having read your other posts on the subject not posted to me but to others, I see that you do not necessarily think that a child born to US citizens abroad are not U.S. citizens at birth and NBC’s (like Ax’s children – that you claim not to be a “birther” – that the question remains unsettled by court decision and that you believe that Ax’s children would be eligible to be POTUS and in that we do not disagree.
However I think perhaps you are still confused about what is meant regarding birth on U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities – that differentiates children born on such U.S. facilities abroad whose parents do not meet any of the requirements of parental U.S. citizenship and residency, it does not mean to say anything about the children born abroad by a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the U.S. residency requirements as their citizenship is not predicated on whether or not they were born on a U.S. facility abroad or as you stated, to children born on U.S. soil.
Here is the entire section of which you quoted with nothing skipped and with key words highlighted:
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... 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.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Note that, and I think you probably agree, that the words “does not necessarily imply” does not mean that it is implicit or settled law. I am not saying this for your benefit but for others who may misunderstand what the U.S. State Department Manual is saying. The U.S. State Department is basically saying that the law is very complicated and they are not in the position and rightly so, to rule on the Constitutional eligibility question. I think this last statement is more of a CYA than it is their opinion on the subject.
Here is a link to the entire manual:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1132 EVOLUTION OF KEY ACQUISITION STATUTES
7 FAM 1132.1 March 26, 1790
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. The First Congress enacted "An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization" (1 Stat. 103,104) that stated, in part, that: the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the 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.
b. This Act was repealed by the Act of January 29, 1795.
7 FAM 1132.2 January 29, 1795
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. This Act (1 Stat. 414) repealed the Act of March 26, 1790, but in section 3, adopted essentially the same provision for acquiring U.S. citizenship by birth abroad.
b. This Act was repealed by the Act of April 14, 1802
7 FAM 1132.3 April 14, 1802
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. Section 4 of this Act (2 Stat. 153,155) stated, in part, that: ―the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.
‖ b. This Act’s formula of permitting transmission of citizenship by ―persons who now are, or have been citizens raised a question whether persons who subsequently became citizens by birth or naturalization could transmit citizenship to their children born abroad. The right of such persons to transmit was clearly provided in the Act of February 10, 1855.
7 FAM 1132.4 February 10, 1855
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. On this date, Congress enacted "An Act to Secure the Right of Citizenship to Children of Citizens of the United States Born Out of the Limits Thereof," (10 Stat.604).
b. It stated, in part, that: ―persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.‖
c. The Act of February 10, 1855 did not repeal the Act of April 14, 1802.
FAM 1132.5 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. The provisions of the Act of 1802 and the Act of 1855 were codified as Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1878. From 1878 to 1934, Section 1993, Rev. Stat., stated that: All children heretofore or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.
b. Section 1993 permitted the transmission of citizenship only by U.S. citizen fathers until it was amended prospectively on May 24, 1934, to permit transmission by U.S. citizen mothers. (The similar rights of women were also addressed by the 1994 amendment to section 301 INA (see 7 FAM 1133.2-1).)
It goes on…and on and on…
But the key point is that the "Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization" (1 Stat. 103,104) that stated, in part, that: the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the 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., while repealed by the Act of January 29, 1795, that act “in section 3, adopted essentially the same provision for acquiring U.S. citizenship by birth abroad.” Subsequent acts only clarified or liberalized residency requirements or expanded the right of citizenship to the children of U.S. citizen mothers or to the children born out of wedlock. But the essence and spirit of the first act of 1790 did not change, although some may disagree.
And I agree with you that the Constitution and the 14th Amendment only classifies two types of citizenship; those who acquire it by birth and those who acquire it through “naturalization” and I agree with you that there are retention requirements placed upon citizenship at birth for those born overseas that are not conditions required of those born on U.S. soil.
I find the whole argument regarding the definition of NBC interesting because of my family history. My father was born in Norway and was brought to the U.S. around the age of 6 by his widowed mother several years after she came here legally and established permanent residency and remarried another Norwegian legal immigrant who adopted my father but neither of whom became naturalized citizens until some years later.
My father being so young quickly assimilated and considered himself an American. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entered WWII, my father, like a lot of other patriotic young American men, at age 18 went to voluntarily enlist to fight for “his” country but was refused to enlist voluntarily as he was a not citizen nor were his parents at the time, so he applied for naturalization. But ironically a year later and before he became a citizen he was drafted by the U.S. Army. Even more ironically, at the time he was drafted, he was working for the NY railroad and as it was considered “essential war work” and he was entitled to a deferment but refused. He served with honor and distinction in the SPT earning two Purple Hearts and several metals for valor in battle. After the war, he came back to his home in New Jersey and met and married my mother and they had a child, my older brother. After my brother was born, my father finally got his naturalization papers - something that would have happened prior to my brother’s birth had the U.S. Army not lost for a time his records and his discharge papers and even then made mistakes on them such as saying he served in the ETO that delayed his application. During the time my father was serving in the Army during the war, his parents were naturalized but since my father was over 21 by then, their citizenship did not confer to him.
When my father appeared before the judge presiding over his naturalization swearing in ceremony two years after my brother was born, he told my father that this was a “mere” formality and that in his opinion; my father became for all intense purposes a U.S. citizen when he took the military oath and proved his allegiance to this county by his military service.
I was born 12 years after my brother, after my father’s naturalization. Both my brother and I were both born on U.S. soil, but since my father was not yet “officially” naturalized, some say that my brother is not a NBC and would be ineligible for the office of POTUS, were as I would be.
Some would argue that since my father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of my brother’s birth, that my brother retained some sort of dual allegiance to the county of my father’s birth. But nothing could be farther from the truth. My father was a Red White and Blue American through and through – a true American patriot in both words and deeds. He loved this country with all his heart¸ was proud of his service to this country and knew more about American history than most who were born here, and while proud of his “Viking” heritage (as I am), never considered himself a Norwegian or a Norwegian-American (BTW, he hated those hyphenations, often saying “either you are an American or you are not, I am an American) and would often say “Love America or Leave It”. He didn’t even speak any Norwegian at home except when my grandparents came to visit and even then he would tell them – speak English or get out!) He had no tolerance for anti-American sentiments especially during the anti-war movements of the late 1960’s, he was a member in good standing with the VFW, the American Legion and the NRA, was a Conservative and a registered Republican.
I like to kid my brother about what the “birthers” say, telling him he is not a NBC; that he is not as much as a citizen as I am. Of course I’m only doing this to rib him because that’s what little sisters do but I consider my big brother just as much as an American and NBC as I am.
Republicans need to remember that you can lure conservatives to vote for a liberal even if the Democrat is more liberal. We need to nominate conservatives to win.
Well, you stirred the pot and brought out all of the NBC warriors of various stripes (anti-birthers, concern trolls, Fogblowers) by saying “we are getting somewhere” on having a Fox reporter rebut Hannity and declare Cruz to be ineligible. I expect that this came from Roger Ailes and Rove who will be backing Jeb, I expect.
I already know he's eligible. So does Senator Cruz. It's Carl Cameron and the birthers who are wrong on this. If Senator Cruz decides to run, there won't be a court in the country standing in his way.
“Obama Sr was NEVER an American citizen. So why are you not parading with a protest placard in front of the white house?”
I’m sure that comment makes sense to you. It certainly doesn’t to me, much less as a response to my # 19, to wit: “Children of American citizens born overseas are indisputably American citizens. It’s a question of their being ‘natural born citizens,’ as called for in the Constitution as a prerequisite to presidential eligibility that is in dispute.”
Care to elaborate?
I agree ‘sujets naturel’ is the proper phrasing, in that time, for natural born citizen or subject. It is the phrase used in French legal documents that referenced English natural born subjects.
I was unaware that he used the phrase once.
“So, to say that Vattel NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born Subjects” is a bit deceptive...”
Not deceptive. An error, but only to the extent that he used the phrase once, in a passage I’ve never seen a birther reference. The passage birthers care about is when Vattel said the NATIVES, or INDIGENES (indigenous persons) have two citizen parents.
Vattel never said that NBS/NBCs require two citizen parents. That came from a bad translation in 1797, but the underlying words in French are NOT ‘sujets naturel’. Yet birthers have claimed thousands of times on FR alone that Vattel said a NBC requires two citizen parents. And Vattel never wrote that.
The fact you have discovered, that he used the correct phrase one time, is only proof that he was aware of the phrase, and that he chose NOT to use it in his often mis-cited sentence.
Birthers also ignore the context of Vattel. Even today, the Swiss are more concerned with parentage for citizenship, not birth location. That is a valid point for international law, and for how some countries on the European continent view citizenship, but it has never been the custom of England or the USA to look primarily to parentage.
“That being said, in keeping with Our Founding Fathers’ original intent, it is one’s loyalty to his country and her people that is the true litmus test for Natural Born.”
Nope. They didn’t write that. The litmus test for a natural born citizen was identical to the litmus test for a natural born subject - birth under the Sovereign. NBC & NBS were used interchangeably by the ratifying legislatures for years before and after the Constitution. They are the same phrase, and it was one with an accepted legal meaning.
They could easily have written, “The President must be born to citizen parents and have lived at least 75% of his life within the USA”. Of course, Rev Wright and Bill Ayers are proof that THAT wouldn’t result in loyalty to the country. Hell, Hillary Clinton and JFKerry (who served in Vietnam, don’t you know) are both born to two citizen parents, and they both hate the USA and God as much as Obama does.
In the end, the Founders required birth within the USA, or possibly birth to citizen parent(s) outside the USA.
Someone born in the USA to two citizen parents, who moved to Iran at 3 months, and who lived there for 40 years, who then moved back and lived for 14 years in the USA would meet the criteria by all standards to run for President - but would that person be fundamentally American? Probably not. Just as Obama is fundamentally a God-hating, racist anti-American.
VOTERS have the responsibility of ensuring loyalty to the USA, but it seems the majority of American voters no longer care about America or the principles our country was founded on.
To me, citizenship seems much like the concept of claim or title in real estate.
You can't claim ownership unless the chain of claim and title to it is clear and there are no competing claims.
Citizenship is also a sort of claim or title and for the president, who has 1/3 of the government's power and supreme command of the nation's armed forces, voters are buying with their vote what they believe is a "clean title" with regard to that person and his or her loyalty to US and any other nation's claim to him or her.
The cleanest title possible, with no other claims or potential claims against it, so to speak, is that of someone born in country to citizen parents.
However you or any other entity, legal or otherwise, in the present or past has defined citizenship, everyone and everything agrees that person is a citizen of that country and no other. No other can claim that person, nor does that person have claim to any other country.
I believe that was the intent of the NBC requirement and born of citizen parents in country is the only definition that covers any and all definitions and challenges, legal or otherwise, such to grant a clear title, so to speak, of both citizenship and potential loyalty at time of birth.
Deciding inheritance claims appear to be much like determining title to real estate and both seem similar to citizenship, so the concepts are not new or unusual in law. Certainly, the FFs were aware of such legal concepts.
So, it always gets back to what was the intent of the FFs for eligibility for the highest office in the new government they were creating? What dangers, legal and otherwise, were they trying to avoid and how best to avoid them with the limits of an eligibility requirement?
Additionally, they had just won the revolution and were quite serious about loyalty and treason, just ask hero of the revolution Ben Arnold, so dismissing concerns about divided allegiance while trying to determine and understand their eligibility intentions is a mistake.
Rawle was not just a close contact of two of our greatest Founders. He was a recognized early legal expert.
You're acting like a typical birther, in demanding the highest possible level of evidence for the historical interpretation of natural born citizen, and demanding NO evidence for the novel birther one. Just sayin'.
For example, in law school, we had many conversations as students, with much variety of opinion, yet I would count myself a good friend to these people, even if there were some areas of the law we did not discuss, and even if in some of those unspoken areas we might prove later to differ. The friendship argument is a nullity, an argument from silence, and of no value in advancing the discussion.
Again, Rawle was not only a friend of at least two of our most important Founders, he was an important and recognized legal expert. Against Rawle, there is... what? Some stupid assertion that a writer who never used the term "natural born citizen" actually defined it. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. It is beyond baseless, it is an absolute falsehood. It is a twisting of our Constitution. And you're fine with that. Because enough people have made the baseless claim that you give it credibility simply on the basis of the fact that a bunch of people have made it.
I wonder what other twistings of the Contitution you would tolerate.
Furthermore, I note that you are unresponsive to the grandfather clause argument. That is your choice. There are times I too simply ignore an argument, because I recognize that the judge is not interested, and wants to be convinced on some other basis. I try to accommodate my audience. It doesn’t always work. But if you just ignore key objections to your argument, you have no chance of persuading your audience at all.
Once again, like a typical birther way deep into the conspiracy theory, you demand that I answer every possible point. I typed for hours yesterday. You ignore that I completely destroyed every single point DL made in the point I referenced.
If someone in business tells you something that turns out to be false 5 times in a row, do you keep doing business with that person, or do you conclude that he either has no clue about his products or is an outright charlatan? Yet you willingly indulge those like DiogenesLamp who tell you provably false things 5 times in a row. And then you come to the person who pointed out that the 5 "diamonds" you bought are only pieces of plastic, and demand that he produce more evidence that the diamond dealer isn't a real diamond dealer.
There is a reason why I say that the two citizen parent claim is FALSE, and people like DiogenesLamp are twisting the Constitution. That's not an "ad hominem" attack. It is a factual description of what these people are doing.
As for the grandfather clause, I might answer the point if I knew what you were talking about.
Well said.
“You must at the very least concede that there was absolutely NO Act, law or provision for dual citizenship at the time the Constitution was signed. It did not exist as an OPTION.”
And thus it was not addressed in the Constitution. There is no prohibition in the Constitution against dual citizens. And if Russia decided today to declare all US citizens to be Russian citizens, we would all instantly be dual citizens - because we cannot control what foreign governments do.
But it also doesn’t affect us, because the Constitution makes no mention of dual citizenship.
The point is, your position seems to be that you are going to cling absolutely to your claim that Vattel was the source of the "law of nations" phrase in the Constitution, EVEN IF it is shown CONCLUSIVELY that:
1. The phrase isn't just "law of nations," it's "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."
2. Vattel was only ONE writer, out of a bunch, on the "law of nations."
3. A MUCH better-known writer than Vattel wrote a VERY well known book with an entire chapter entitled, "OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS."
4. That writer was quoted 16 times by the Founding Fathers for every 1 time that they quoted Vattel.
5. Vattel never said a word about Felonies or the high Seas, and only mentioned Pirates once in his whole book, whereas the far better-known author discussed ALL of the above in his chapter on Offences Against the Law of Nations.
6. I can even show conclusively that, yes, the Founders purchased that author's book for use in the Senate.
All of that would be absolutely compelling evidence that the other author I mention is FAR, FAR more likely - in fact, I think we could say almost certainly - the source of that phrase in the Constitution rather than Vattel.
And yet you adamantly refuse to simply say that you are willing to go by the evidence.
That is about like being on a jury and saying, "I don't care whether the DNA evidence says this man is innocent. I'm going to vote that he's guilty."
It's not a huge thing I'm asking of you. Just a commitment to GO WITH THE EVIDENCE. Are you so married to your belief that that is so hard?
You lost. You are not debating or discussing. You are making up things to try to distract from the actual point of this thread.
Cruz is a dual citizen. There was NO dual citizenship in 1787 in either the US or in England. So what if some of our more prominent politicians of the time were declared honorary citizens? Was Jefferson born a dual citizen? No, he was not. Did he give up his US citizenship at any point in his life? No he did not. He was given an honor, which was very common back then. Much like a person would be given an honorary Doctorate who may never have set foot in a collage.
Lets repeat the two most important things there - Jefferson was NOT born a dual citizen. Jefferson never lost US citizenship.
I asked you to post the US *LAWS* regarding dual citizenship. The US *LAWS* officially recognizing dual citizenship.
Cruz was born a dual citizen. That means that AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH he was a citizen of two different countries.
Next, you show me one law or Act passed prior to the signing of the US Constitution officially recognizing dual citizenship.
You keep saying things are “clear”, yet you post NO proof, you list no sources, you provide no links.
What is clear is that you are emotionally responding to this discussion, but you have zero facts to back you up.
Maybe you should spend time researching instead of just sharing your non-fact based opinions.
Come on. You’re not even trying now. None of that made the slightest sense.
You know, about the supposed “ad hominem” bit.
If you read enough, including everything that’s been written, and weigh everything on both sides, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that this entire claim is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
So why did it ever take hold?
It took hold partly because people thought, “Maybe there’s something to this. Yeah, that sounds plausible. Yeah, that sounds good.”
I certainly didn’t know enough at first to be able to say with authority that it was all BS.
So you have people making this major Constitutional claim. And it is all absolute BS. But nobody really slaps it down, because not very many people are sure whether it’s BS or not.
And it sounds good. Hey, if we believe this, then we can argue that Obama is ineligible! Hooray!
So people give this big FALSE claim credence, and before you know it, a bunch of people believe it.
And in fact, a bunch of people can’t be convinced otherwise. Because it’s such a PRETTY claim.
Well, I am telling you: the claim is absolutely false. It is supported by virtually no credible authority in history. There is not a single source close to the Founders or Framers that gives it any credibility.
There are HUNDREDS of quotes available throughout history of what people believed about natural born citizenship, and they ALWAYS believed that birth on US soil was the ONLY thing required.
It is simply a FALSE claim, and one which twists the Constitution, and for my part I think that if we value the Constitution it’s time we stopped indulging people who are twisting it and claiming it says stuff it doesn’t say.
Hmm. Well, as I recall, I HAVE posted evidence for my points. Maybe you missed it.
But here. I'll give you a chance to end the conversation right now, and I'll accept your evidence.
You say that being a dual citizen is a Constitutional bar to being President of the United States. That seems like absolute nonsense to me, since our third President, Thomas Jefferson, actually WAS a dual citizen WHILE HE OCCUPIED THE OFFICE.
But you say it doesn't matter that he was a dual citizen, because he wasn't BORN a dual citizen. Wow. I don't see the difference there. It seems to me that if you're a dual citizen, then you're a dual citizen, whether you were born one or were naturalized. But hey, what do I know?
So I'm willing to accept your claim that persons born dual citizens are barred from being President. Just show me where in the Constitution it actually says that, and then you can proclaim victory, and we can move on.
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.