Posted on 03/16/2016 4:56:59 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
“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.”
Many FReepers are clamoring to see Donald Trump choose Ted Cruz as his choice for Vice-President. Indeed, it is the ultimate selection, even better than when McCain chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for VP in 2008: Cruz is only in his mid-40s. He has a command of the Constitution and conservatism like no other Republican has had in a generation, and he is a skilled and polished debater who would absolutely eat his Democrat opponent for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and defecate them back out even before the VP debate begins.
Unfortunately, the only thing standing in Cruz's way is the very prestigious document that he has a firm command of: The U.S. Constitution.
Now, I don't want to hear about how "Well, Obama is President, so that means Cruz should, too!" You conveniently ignore the fact that we are dealing with leftists. Leftists like Hillary/Obama are immune from hypocrisy and double-standards. If Rafael "Ted" Cruz is handed the GOP nomination by the corrupt GOP leadership, or if he is selected for VP by Donald Trump, he will get utterly destroyed.
Let's recap:
- Rafael "Ted" Cruz was clearly born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
- Rafael "Ted" Cruz kept his Canadian citizenship and did not renounce it until May 2014 . Not 1984, not 1994, not even in 2004. But just 2 years ago.
- Rafael "Ted" Cruz's Mother may have held Canadian citizenship in 1970. In 1970, Canada did NOT allow dual-citizenship.
- Rafael "Ted" Cruz's Father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 2005.
- His parents failed to file a CRBA form which is required by US law. Ted’s parents did not fill out the required form until 1986.
So there you have it. Don't get mad at me, Trump actually brought this up so Cruz would have the time to defuse it.
Here's what's going to happen:
- Wacko FL Congressman Alan Grayson will do the dirty work and file a lawsuit against Cruz for being on the ticket.
- Hillary Clinton and Obama will say that we all need to "stick to the issues" and not get caught up over "this birther nonsense."
- Behind the scenes however, Obama's DOJ, appointed leftist judges, the media, and various leftist activist groups will continue to feed the narrative and call on Cruz to "step down."
- Trump will be unable to push his message to the people, because he's going to be dealing with Cruz's eligibility distraction.
Now, I don't have a problem with Cruz being Trump's choice VP (Yes, I would still vote for a Trump/Cruz ticket, even though I hate Cruz for not defending Trump over the thugs who shut down his rally, even though he's a smarmy know-it-all who sold his soul to the GOPe, and even though that he'll get destroyed over his eligibility). So, Donald Trump should choose someone who is not only eligible, but will compliment him on the ticket as well (Duncan Hunter, Jr., IMO).
Alas, there is no definition of same in any law or legal proceeding. The Constitution expressly leaves the definition of citizenship to the Congress -- which defined the two categories of "born citizen" and "naturalized citizen" in a 1790 law. At th time, many of the founders sat in Congress and unanimously approved the law.
But you knew that, too, didn't you?
U.S. law doesn't subscribe to Vattel, it follows British Common Law.
““...born of a country to parents who are its citizens....”
I comprehend just fine. I was asking for a cite of that wording which is not in Article II of the Constitution.”
The USSC decision in Minor v Happersett quotes De Vattel’s “Law of Nations” definition of Natural Born Citizen exactly in answering the question of whether Elizabeth was a citizen. She was born in the US of 2 American citizen parents. Therefore a born US citizen with the quality of being a NBC.
Note that in USSC Decision Wong Kim Arc, Mr. Wong was determined to be a born citizen, but NOT an NBC.
You may want to take a look at the Elg Decision, 1934. Same definition....born in a country to parents who were its citizens.
“defined the two categories of “born citizen” and “naturalized citizen” in a 1790 law.”
The 1790 law was so flawed that in 1795 it was repealed and replaced....”But you knew that, too, didn’t you?” They passed it, then they read it. and then they had to repeal it. Lolololol.....
“U.S. law doesn’t subscribe to Vattel, it follows British Common Law.”
I beg to differ. Reread the Constitution’s Preamble where it states the Constitution is based on Natural Law... De Vattel, Locke, Aquinas, et al.
Common law is law based on Custom. US Law is based on Statute. Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was used in US Law Schools as a textbook until the 1880s. You are mis-informed.
It is silly to say that the US adopted the laws of a country that it found to be unjust, and had just successfully rebelled against in order to establish a new country.
The Founders used 2 texts in writing the Constitution. Blackstone’s Common Law which showed where they had come from, and Vattel’s “Law of Nations” to see where they wanted to go. Again reread the Constitution’s Preamble......
Under British Common Law the People are Subjects....
Under US Law the People are Citizens.
Understanding the difference between Subjects and Citizens is key to understanding the fallacy of “.... it follows British Common Law.”
Under US Law the People are Citizens.
You are correct. But you're missing the point...barely.
The U.S. chose to define its citizens the same way Britain defined its subjects.
Britain defined a British subject as one born of a British father...anywhere in the world. Managing a far-lung empire required British citizens to be posted all around the globe. It was desirable that their children be born British. Accordingly, a British child born in In-jah was just as British as a British child born in Cornwall.
And we've determined citizenship in the same way as Britain has determined its subjects.
By the way, the 1795 citizenship law maintains the same two classifications of citizen. But you knew that...
agreed: the founders used natural law as a definition. everyone agrees that there are exceptions to those laws based on the motives/actions of the parent and laws of congress. these exceptions are the sacred cows of citizenship, however, accept them and there is the opening.
IF you are a bigwig abassador or a common soldier living in a foreign country, your child born there is a NBC - even though that child has CLEARLY been foreign born. so, we’ve now accepted that it is within the power of CONGRESS to declare that foreign soil is AMERICAN soil. it is also within the power of congress to declare that a child actually born on American soil is NOT a citizen because the parents are not under the jurisdiction of American law if they are aliens.
we’ve already accepted foreign born children as NBCs because congress said they were, whether we like it or not.
because this has been done by all countries since the time borders were drawn is not important. the fact is that congress defines citizenship....also whether we like it or not.
Ted talking in tongues, passing around the copper heads and claiming Jesus has anointed him does not make him anymore Christian than Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Jones. I do not like him but this born in Canada crap has not a thing to do with citizenship as his mother was an American citizen. We beat ourselves up over the right of the Kenyan Muslim communist to hold the office and what did it gain, two terms of executive orders and two losers we opted to run against him.
That was the information I was looking for. Thank you.
“By the way, the 1795 citizenship law maintains the same two classifications of citizen.
I don’t dispute that except to say that that Article II requires a born citizen that has the quality of having been born in the US to citizen Parents (2 as there are no immaculate births a much as the Cruzers would like that to be.)
The Founders did not coin the term Natural Born Citizen, but they used the term in Article II for a purpose. It is used as a restrictive requirement designed to eliminate those with foreign influence in their upbringing. It requires a person installed as President was born and reared with 100% US American influence. See Vattel’s explanation on the importance of NBCs to a nation to realize why the Founders used the term in setting up the eligibility requirements for the highest Office in the Land.
The British term “Natural Born Subject” as a corruption of the ages old term NBC used by the Roman REPUBLIC, and adopted by other western governments. It’s (NBS’) real effect is that everyone and every thing born on British soil owes a duty to the King (Queen) as subjects. Foreigners born on British soil are NBSs until they leave British soil.
No matter how much you insist the Founders used Natural Law as stated in the Constitution’s Preamble and rejected the idea of Royal Governance over subjects/serfs.
I’m done with ya!
Good! And I with you.
That’s why I take responsibility for following the rules myself. I can’t change others, but I can control what I do.
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.