Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

The Ridgewood Blog ^ | August 27, 2013 | PJBlogger

[one guy in new jersey]

Partial Transcript of the Mark Levin Show aired live on Monday, August 19, 2013

[start at 0:26 of the podcast recording]

Hello everybody, Mark Levin here, our number 877-381-3811, 877-381-3811.

Mark Levin: Before we jump in, all I can say is, Wow! You guys, open your microphones a second. Thousands of people at both booksignings. Wasn’t that unbelievable?

Staffer: There were a lot of people there, it was great.

Mark Levin: And the people were just spectacular, weren’t they? Except for one guy in New Jersey which I’ll talk about later.

Staffer: [chuckles]

Mark Levin: This… this birther stuff is way, way out of contr…”Now Ted Cruz” … I swear I almost hit this guy… “Ted Cruz is not a citizen!” No, he’s born to an American mother, no he’s born in Canada to an American mother. So all you pregnant ladies travelling overseas: According to certain birther, uh, groups, if you have a child while you are on vacation, they’re not Americans. They’re not natural-born Americans. I just thought you’d wanna know, if you were thinking of your kid as a potential presidential candidate, uh, because they say so. They have no historical background whatsoever… None! But it’s, it’s just amazing! Absolutely stunning! But we had so many wonderful people, and let me add, all races, both genders… I don’t know the sexual preferences, that wasn’t a requirement to say hello…young people, elderly, middle age people. A particularly young crowd, yeah, we had dogs come too, everybody so well behaved, and uh, it was a pleasure. In New York, we were there about four-and-a-half hours, in New Jersey about five, five-and-a-half hours, and I wanted to be respectful to everybody, so… I just want to thank you all, and this Saturday, Tyson’s Corner, Virginia, at Barnes and Noble. I should add, if you want to see the crowd that was at New York, Mr. Producer went down the line, and this was early on, this, this line kept growing and growing throughout the day…you can go look at uh MarkLevinShow.com on our website, as well as the social sites MarkLevinShow Facebook, MarkLevinShow Twitter. Um, Christians, Coptic Christians are being wiped out in Egypt. Their churches are being burned to the ground….

[stop at 3:01 of the podcast recording]

…

[restart at 59:22 of the podcast recording]

Mark Levin: Alright, lets go to uh, Steve in New York, the great WABC, go!

Steve: Great one, it’s great to talk to you, what an honor.

Mark Levin: My honor, thank you, my friend.

Steve: Oh, I got a great story for you, I loved your uh, Hannity special, I enjoyed it very much, I listened to it three times over the weekend…

Mark Levin: Oh, thank you.

Steve: …I got my wife, I got my wife to tape for me, or TIVO it, and she watched it. And she really enjoyed it. She’s not big on politics or anything, and she gets sick of hearing me talk about it, but it was funny ‘cause she said “He is so calm, Steve.” He was, she was trying to do a little wifey/husband training? And…

Mark Levin: Uh huh.

Steve: she said “He is so calm, and he gets his point across. He didn’t raise his voice, or get upset…

Mark Levin: [chuckles]

Steve: …or anything!”

Mark Levin: [breaks out into laughter]

Steve: …and I laughed so hard. I said “How do you, uh, where do you think I learned how to yell?” [laughs] “I just listen to Mark.” And she knows you’re my hero, I go around quotin’ ya, and tellin’ everybody to listen to ya, and…

Mark Levin: Well, that’s great.

Steve: she just … to get me to calm down a little, and I said you just need to listen to Mark. [laughs]

Mark Levin: Well, thank you, uh…well listen, you know what, this is called passion, just remind her it’s passion, you know, and um…what was truly exceptional about the Hannity program, number one, the man has enormous class and decency, and number two, he was asking me questions because he wanted me to inform the public about what I’d written, and to engage the studio audience. And notice we didn’t have a bunch of left-wing bomb throwers just yelling and talking over people. There were conversations actually occurring, did you notice that?

Steve: Yes, there was no crazy, I mean a lot of times he’s got the left wingers on there, and it’s just, kind, it’s almost funny to watch, but that was so interesting and…and it didn’t get me upset, and it just, I just wanted to listen to it over and over and absorb every second of it, and every bit of information, it…it’s just brilliant, Mark, I, you know I hope when um…we’ve got President Cruz, he has the wisdom to make you his chief of staff or vice-president.

Mark Levin: No, no no no no no. And he’s got a great chief of staff, by the way. No, I…I do what I do, and uh, and he will do a great job should he be president. Thank you for your call my friend. And uh, I’m so sick of these birthers. I was going to tell you about this, uh, incident. Just a wonderful group of people, uh, we were in Bookends, Ridgewood, New Jersey, and everyone was respectful until…and it was hot outside, it got hot, hotter than uh originally forecast and it was a very long line, and you know we try to go through it quickly out of respect for everybody in line, but I also try to be respectful to everybody in line. Um…but this fella [breathes out] gets in my face and first of all he points to some obscure note on page I don’t know whatever and he said [cough] excuse me folks, and he says “You were wrong about this, you were wrong about”, and honestly I, I, I didn’t have time to read it, and I’ll go back and check it, if I’m wrong about it I’ll fix it, and that happens sometimes in these books when you’re going into the notes, you might put a word when you mean another word, or a state when you mean another state, so I’m going to check it out, I just haven’t had time. And then he goes, he says uh “And Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president. He’s not a natural-born Citizen.” And I thought to myself, you know I, this is not a subject that I have studied so thoroughly, but he’s born of a mother who is an American citizen. Doesn’t that make him a natural-born Ci… “No, but he was in Canada when he was born!” Okay, but she wasn’t Canadian, she was an American citizen! She was an American citizen. And so, the issue isn’t what the Constitution says in that regard, the issue is how do we interpret that. And the way I interpret it is, his mother’s an American citizen, so he’s an American citizen! That’s not a constitutional issue, that’s an interpretive issue… or, a statutory issue if Congress has passed some law subsequent to that to enforce that provision of the Constitution. So, the face of the Constitution isn’t terribly helpful. If he was born of non-citizens in a foreign country that would be easy, and there’s a lot of easy cases. So the guy gets in my face, and he starts pointing and pointing, and I looked at him and I pointed back, and I cursed, unfortunately, but the, because, uh you know, he was…he was a nutjob. And I thought to myself: Why do you come here and do that? Is this, is this sort of the way you…you excite yourself or something? No. So, I just want you folks to know who like Ted Cruz. I…I assume they’re going to do this to Rubio, or some of these other people too, whether you like ‘em or not for president I’m just making a point, but now this has become an entire industry. And of course [chuckles] Ted Cruz [laughs], he immediately issued today or yesterday his long form birth certificate. Now, some of this is probably coming from the left. So now they’re the birthers. But some of it’s coming from others, too. People just get obsessed, or conspiratorial, and there’s no end to it, on a matter like this, and there’s nothing I can say or point to that’s going to change their mind. But in my view there’s no doubt about it that he’s eligible for president, should he choose to run, just as I believe McCain was eligible for president, when he ran. So…that’s my opinion! You may not like it… But what particularly bothered me about this guy…he was disrespectful in his conduct to everybody else standing there. They were pleasant, talking to each other, you know…listening, watching and so forth. I’m a big boy; I’ve seen this and a thousand times worse. But he was quite obnoxious. He’s the only one…oh no there was another guy, had a prob, wha wha, he what…he had a problem, he was screaming upstairs, I don’t know what he was screamin’ about. It was kind of eventful there in New Jersey. No, there wasn’t anything like that in New York, was there boys? [Staff: No. Peaceful in ji…you know in Long Island] It was peaceful on Long Island! [chuckles] But is was peaceful in New Jersey, too. It really, really was. It was just terrific. If you could have seen that line, well, actually you can. We have the uh video, and this is just the start of the day with the line. It got longer and longer at uh… at Book Review in Long Island if you want to take a look on MarkLevinShow.com or MarkLevi…oh there is now? The…the New Jersey line? Okay. Both lines. On MarkLevinShow.com, are they both on the social sites too? Or…just the Long Island. But we’ll put the other one up later so some of you can see yourselves, too. Alright. GoldLine!

[stop at 67:00 of the podcast recording]

(further information and videos at: http://queenofliberty.com/2013/08/14/mark-levin-rolls-out-his-new-book/)

[Impy]

State House Minority Whip Alex Willette and former State House Majority Leader Josh Tardy are out.

Kevin Raye and State Senator Rich Rosen are in.

Some disgusting polling news, latest PPP shows the Libertarian at 9% in the Virginia Governor’s race, enough to elect McAwful. I’ve seen a couple news articles on the race with the comments section teeming with Paulbots pimping the Libertarian, Robert Sarvis. They travel in packs.

[Uncle Sham]

Doesn't matter. Jefferson falls under the grandfathered in clause of the eligibility requirements.

"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.

[Spaulding]

"In 1779, Jefferson wrote a bill on becoming a citizen of Virginia. Among the requirements to become a citizen were:?

Thanks SvenMagnussen. Consistent with your clarification, the Constitution didn't tackle citizenship because each state had its own naturalization criteria. The framers only defined the requirements for the president, including the clever ‘grandfather clause’ without which no one could be president because no on 35 could have been born to citizen parents for at least twenty four years after the ratification. The Uniform Rule for Naturalization, clearly delineating who were citizen at birth, was not created until 1868, the 14th Amendment, which explicitly never touched natural born citizenship. Thus attempts to conflate citizenship at birth and native-born citizenship with natural born citizenship are without legal substance. We had a bunch of residents, native-born, who were explicitly not natural born, nor even made citizens, American Indians, who did not accept our Constitution or pay taxes.

A question for which I've never seen an answer: “Can a natural born citizen renounce his citizenship?” We know, from Perkins v. Elg. (1939) that Chief Justice Hughes affirmed that Marie Elg, born to naturalized parents in New York, and returned as a toddler to Sweden when her father found a job (this was the depression). She was raised in Sweden, and denied a passport as a twenty year old. The SCOTUS decided that she could not be denied her natural born citizenship because it was citizenship granted by God, natural law, and not by men, Congress. Does that apply to people who renounce their citizenship as adults?

I suspect, and Vattel speaks at length of the right to repudiate ones citizenship, though he suggests that a nation has the right to make him train his replacement if his skills are essential to the health of the society, that an adult can renounce citizenship, though parents cannot do so for their minor children. If you have knowledge of positive law or opinions, I'd appreciate you insight.

[cynwoody]

So if Obama is not eligible, neither is Ted Cruz...

Obama and Cruz are both eligible. As are McCain, Jindal, Rubio, and Haley. As is your son.

NBC is simply citizen by birth, nothing more. Obama, Jindal, Rubio, Haley, and your son are NBC because they were born in the US. Cruz, McCain, and your son (assuming his father was a citizen) are NBC because at least one parent was a citizen.

[WhiskeyX]

“OK. Let’s assume for purposes of discussion that Obama was born in Kenya or somewhere else outside US. Then his qualifications are identical to those of Cruz.”

That is a false statement. The mother of Ted Cruz was ostensibly a U.S. Citizen, born and raised in the State of Delaware. At the time she gave birth to Ted Cruz in Canada, she was supposedly an adult who had been resident in the United States the required minimum of years after her required birthday. Obama’s mother was a minor and not an adult as required to convey her U.S. citizenship to her son when born abraod. Under international law, treaties,and U.S. immigration and naturalizations laws, an unemancipated mother or minor lacks the legal capacity to convey her U.S. citizenship to her child. Consequently, Obama’s citizenship was determined by his place of birth and/or his father’s citizenship.

[WhiskeyX]

The alleged granting of French citiznship to Thomsas Jefferson required the enactment of a public law by the French legislature, and there has been no evidence after more than 200 years of any such a public act or law by the French Government. The sole source of the allegation of such French citizenship has been attributed back to a newspaper article that published a hearsay rumor, and the author and publisher retracted the hearsay allegation after being confronted with the falsity of the hearsay rumor. In summary, there is no evidentiary basis and no primary document in evidence to support the retracted hearsay allegations and statements. If such a grant of citizenship had occurred, it would be evident in the French government records. In the absence of such a French Govermnet record, no such grant of citizenship is known to exist as a matter of official recordd or official authority.

[WhiskeyX]

That is an impossibility, because natural born citizenship is the opposite of artificial born citizenship. Natural born citizenship exists in the absence of any aritificial statute of law to authorize or not authorize the existence of the citizenship. Artificial citizenship requires a manmade statute of law to authorize the existence of the citizenship. If the statute of law is repealed, the citizenship cannot come into existence without iit. Contrarily, a natural born citizenship exists without the need for a statute of law ot authorize or not authorize the citizenship. A foreign born person may adopt U.S. citizenship, but only if the statute of law exists to authorize the U.S. citizenship and only when the foreign born citizen can demonstrate the person satisfies all of the conditions of residency and any other conditions required by the statute of law. In the event the person is unable or unwilling to demonstrate eligibility for the U.S. citizenship under the authority of the statute of law, the person may be denied U.S. citizenship by the U.S. Government. A antural born citizen possesses the citizenship in the absence of a statute of law to authorize the citizenship, so a natural born citizen cannot be denied citizenship by a statatute of law setting forth minimum requirements authorizing the U.S. Government to the person to adopt U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Government canot deny a natural born citizen the right of U.S. citizenship, until and unless the natural born U.S. cititizen expatriates.

Therefore, by definition, the people named cannot qualify as natural born citizens of the United States. They do qualify and may qualify in other cases as artificial citizens of the U.S. or as artificial born citizens of the U.S. as the facts of each case may indicate. However, they cannot qualify as natural born citizens of the United States, because their status of U.S. citizens were dependent upon the existence of artificial and not upon natural duty of obediance.

[WhiskeyX]

There is no “valid” evidence Thomas Jefferson was ever granted any kind of French citizenship at any time. Even the source of the hearsay rumor retracted the otherwise non-existant allegation and claim.

With respect to George Washington and James Madison, the French authorities granted them honorary citizenship, which entails no obligations whatsoever to the French sovereign. It is honorary in nature only, and does nothing whatsoever to interfere with their allegiance, loyalty, or duty of obediance to the United States.

[WhiskeyX]

“Place of birth is a modern day convenience to establish NBC status.”

The above statement is erroneous. The jus soli principle of law is an ancient part of feudakl law codified in the 12th Century A.D. and a part of customary law in the prior centuries. Consequently, the jus soli principle of law cannot be modern in its origins. Furthermore, tjus soli could not be used to dtermine status as a natural born citizen where the person is born without a permanent duty of obediance and allegiance to the sovereign. For example jsu Albinatus (birth as an alien) in the sovereign’s jurisdiction resulted in a child born in the jurisdiction with foreign parents is born with the foreign citizenship of the parents and without the citizenship of the place of birth. By contrast, the natural born citizen can have no other citizenship but that of the parents and place of birth, because there are no other sovereigns in a position to have reason to claim an obligation for obediance and allegiance from the child at birth o afterwards.

[SvenMagnussen]

A question for which I've never seen an answer: “Can a natural born citizen renounce his citizenship?” We know, from Perkins v. Elg. (1939) that Chief Justice Hughes affirmed that Marie Elg, born to naturalized parents in New York, and returned as a toddler to Sweden when her father found a job (this was the depression). She was raised in Sweden, and denied a passport as a twenty year old. The SCOTUS decided that she could not be denied her natural born citizenship because it was citizenship granted by God, natural law, and not by men, Congress. Does that apply to people who renounce their citizenship as adults?

Since Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia's citizenship bill as Governor, any citizen could actively seek renouncement of their citizenship. Elg did not seek renouncement of her citizenship, she requested a U.S. Passport to return to the country of her birth. She was denied a U.S. passport because the U.S. SoS determined she had effectively renounced her citizenship by moving out of the U.S. and establishing herself as a citizen of Sweden.

At the time, the U.S. SoS could issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to a naturalized citizen who had moved out of the country and established himself/herself as a citizen of another country. The law did not allow for the U.S. SoS to issue a CLN to a natural born citizen of the U.S. who moved out of the U.S. and effectively renounced by establishing themselves as a citizen of another country. (see Vance v. Terrazas, born in Maryland to a U.S. Citizen mother and Mexican father, issued a CLN after he effectively renounced in Mexico.)

Consequently, SCOTUS commented on Elg's natural born citizenship status and opined Elg, or any other natural born citizen, could not effectively renounce by moving out of the country and establishing themselves as a citizen of another country.

Later, SCOTUS ruled it was unconstitutional to issue a CLN to naturalized U.S. citizens who moved out of the U.S. and established themselves as a citizen of another country (see Schneider v. Rusk) because it violated the 5th Amendment (unconstitutional to treat naturalized citizens differently than native born citizens; except when considering eligibility for POTUS). U.S. SoS Rusk asserted Schneider effectively renounced by moving out of the U.S. and establishing themselves as a citizen of another country. SCOTUS did not and cannot order the U.S. SoS stop issuing CLNs for citizens who effectively renounced, only that it cannot differentiate between native born citizens and naturalized citizens.

After that, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals opined NBC status is not a right of any U.S. citizen regardless of the circumstance, see Craig v. U.S. NBC status is not a right because it differentiates between naturalized and natural born citizens in violation of the 5th Amendment.

So, the only way to determine who is eligible for POTUS is to eliminate U.S Citizens who are not eligible. U.S. Citizens who obtained their U.S. Citizenship status through the naturalization process are not eligible. Any U.S. Citizen who relied on the Immigration and Naturalization Act to obtain U.S Citizenship status are not eligible for POTUS.

[SvenMagnussen]

Not all native born citizens are natural born citizens. A child born to diplomats in the U.S. under treaty with another country is a native born child who is not a U.S. Citizen, unless there is specific language in the treaty about children born to diplomats concerning citizenship.

This is why SCOTUS opined there were doubts about native born citizens with non-citizen parents. Some justices believe children of diplomats cannot be U.S. citizens if there is not specific language in a treaty concerning citizenship of children born to diplomats. Others believe children born in the U.S to diplomats without specific language on citizenship is not a U.S. Citizen at birth.

[WhiskeyX]

Yes, however, there were situations in which a child was born abroad or in another sovereign’s jurisdiction in circumstances other than a diplomatic mission where the laws and customs regarded the child as an alien born within their jurisdiction. The child’s parents were aliens, so the child was born with their alien citizenship. In cases where the father was an alien and the mother was a citizen until losing she expatriated with her marriage to the alien, their child was born a citizen of the father’s country. In this fashion there were often several generations of aliens born within the host nation. During the American Revolutionary War and before such laws were the norm in much of the jurisdictions of Royalist France. There was, however, circumstances in which the child though alien born (jus Albinatus) in France coukld adopt French citizenship from birth and was thereby “considered as” a native born French citizen. Failure to adopt French citizenship meant the French estate of the jus Albinatus alien would escheat to the sovereign upon death.

The Framers of the Constitution, being familiar with these contemporaneous citizenship practices understood the differences between a natural born citizen, the different native born citizenships, and naturalized citizens or denizens.

The citizenship status of diplomatic missions, aliens in hostility, subject nations and nationals, and slaves add a varitety of complications and exceptional circumstances, yet comply with the underlying principles of allegiance, duty, and obediance in the relationships between a lord and/or master and the vassal or slave.

[SvenMagnussen]

Review Craig v. U.S., 10th Circuit Court of Appeals http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/09/09-6082.pdf

There is no right to NBC status. NBC status is a term of art, much like saying a person must be of good moral character. No one has a right to be judged as a person of good moral character, but the Courts have recognized a person with a felony conviction fails to meet the standard of good moral character.

For example, if the Founders wrote in Article II a person must be of good moral character to be eligible for POTUS, then you could not disqualify anyone because there is no right to be judged as a person of good moral character. But, a person convicted of a felony could be disqualified because conviction is proof they are not of good moral character.

The Founders did not insist a person must be of good moral character, but a natural born citizen. NBC is a term of art. Anyone can claim NBC status, just like anyone can claim they are of good moral character. The only way to disqualify a candidate for not being NBC is to prove that person obtained their citizenship through the prescribed regulations articulated in the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

[DiogenesLamp]

Good to hear from you again.

I happened to run across this interesting piece of commentary.

In the first seventy-five years of our independence, many Americans – lawyers included – attacked the common law and advocated strongly for codification of all American law, in part, for the better security of citizens from arbitrary rule by judges. The common law was denounced as a barbaric, feudalistic relic of medieval England that imposed ex post facto, retroactive law on parties whenever judges found a new tort or new common law crime.50 Jefferson wrote in a private letter in 1788 that courts in America should be forbidden to cite any English decision since the accession of Lord Mansfield to the bench (in 1756),51 and in a private letter in 1812 that it was improper to quote in American courts any English authorities later than the accession of George III (in 1760).52 During the early codification movement three states – New Jersey in 1799,53 Kentucky in 1808,54 and Pennsylvania in 1810, 55 passed statutes specifically forbidding citation of English cases decided after July 4, 1776. The statutes did not last long in force, and there is some evidence that they were not enforced.56 In New Hampshire, a rule of court was adopted forbidding English citations.57

But all of this was Anglophobia, not xenophobia. Proponents of American codification pointed with admiration and envy to the success of France’s Code Napoléon, parts of which were translated almost immediately in America’s first law journal, and other codes of law.58 Pennsylvania’s statute expressly approved the citation of post-1776 British precedent about the law of nations.

Kinda gives a little more background on this.

Pennsylvania Legislature Act of March 19, 1810

§ 1503. Applicability of colonial law.

(a) English law.--The common law and such of the statutes of England as were in force in the Province of Pennsylvania on May 14, 1776 and which were properly adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants of this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have been in force in this Commonwealth from and after February 10, 1777.

(b) Provincial statutes.--The statutes enacted on or before May 14, 1776 under the authority of the late Proprietaries of the Province of Pennsylvania have the same validity and effect as statutes enacted under the authority of this Commonwealth.

(c) Exceptions.--The rules specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not be applicable to any statute or law which:

(1) has been heretofore or is hereafter amended or repealed or which has expired by its own limitation;

(2) orders the taking or subscribing any oath, affirmation or declaration of allegiance or fidelity to the British crown;

(3) acknowledges any authority in the heirs or devisees of William Penn, Esq., deceased, the former Governor of the Province of Pennsylvania, or any other person whomsoever as Governor of the Province of Pennsylvania; or

(4) is repugnant to the Constitution of this Commonwealth or of the United States.

Sort of ties it together neatly.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thank you for your response. I Agree.

[Spaulding]

"Kinda gives a little more background on this."

Thanks again Diogenes. I know from readers I know personally, but who chose not to participate, but read FR when eligibility issues arise, that when your name appears, they expect to learn."

Your reference to the Boston University article provides context for what is going on, not just for employing foreign law, but the sad reality that if the law is not interpreted with original intent, it means whatever is currently expedient. Sadly, much as I value his insight, Scalia will not necessarily preserve, protect, and defend as an originalist. Justice Thomas is, I believe, in incorrigible originalist. Ginsberg and O’Conner are interesting, but not surprising,bedfellows in the application of foreign decisions.

My exploration of whether English Common-law was important to our framers mostly ended with James Wilson, whose wordy but witty destruction of the integrity of English legal foundations seemed to end discussion. In a nutshell he pointed out, as did Thomas Paine, that the British legal system was built by and for the titled classes, has no constitutional foundation, and is often self-contradictory. But States clearly still kept sensible civil laws around because there was no reason to change them.

It is amazing that you discover these so-relevant documents from our history. that clearly confirm the laws that still exist, laws so inconvenient to those trying to control our understanding of our founders’ and framers’ intentions. I once suggested to ‘rxsid’ that he compile his research into a book, and have the same recommendation to you.

I note that the New Zealander Trevor Loudon, who began to investigate Communists in America as he saw New Zealand move toward socialism, did compile and publish his enormous collection of protected communists, protected because of the success of the campaign of ridicule cleverly labeled after Senator Joe McCarthy, whose history very few know because it has been scrubbed. I compare the campaign coordinated if not managed by Soviet agents to manage our attitudes toward communism to the "birther" campaign which has so thoroughly permeated our media, with almost no one willing to talk facts, and almost everyone claiming that "the Constitution doesn't define...", when the Constitution avoids definitions by design.

This cultural psychosis was recently exposed by Diana West in her book, American Betrayal, viciously attacked by “reformed” Marxists. The “Reformed” Marxists, beginning with Frontage Magazine's Horowitz and Radosh, called her exposure of hundreds of Soviet Agents beginning with FDR in 1933, “McCarthyism,” when Joseph McCarthy exposed the existence of hundreds of Soviet agents in our government, and was never found to have falsely accused anyone. In the context of a thousand or so highly place agents in Washington, we see how effective spies who don't steal weapons secrets or code keys can be by steering attitudes.

The propaganda about presidential eligibility, some clearly paid for by our own taxes being used to effectively amend our Constitution, with public sentiment overruling the meanings communicated by our founders and framers, is what you and others here are countering.

It is not expensive to publish in these days of Internet publishing. Our media are both corrupted and afraid. Here in the contributions by yourself and rxsid is the core of an updated “Dissertation on Citizenship....”, after Dr. Ramsay, annotated with the words of our framers, justices, and historical pundits such an Thomas Paine.

A really ambitious work would include the clever and learned misdirection offered by Obama delegates, since so many of us have followed those paths before realizing that they were built to mislead. But they do show the talent and energy spent to mislead our citizenry. We are targets of a remarkably well-organized usurpation of both our executive branch, and our Constitution. Our Intelligence, Military, and Justice departments can't talk about why the words “Jihad”, “Islamic Terrorism”, “Muslim Extremist”, are no longer permissible in our training manuals, in our legal language (why Hassan’s killing was workplace violence). But we, for the time being, can still expose lies behind why a man with an alien parent, both Muslim and Communist, though “alien” is all that matters, was spirited into our White House where he could appoint extremists to senior positions, like Wahhabi Muslim Convert, John Brennan to CIA.

Now I need to go off and learn more about Samuel Roberts! Were you citing Roberts with “In the first seventy-five years of our independence...”?

Thanks.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks again Diogenes. I know from readers I know personally, but who chose not to participate, but read FR when eligibility issues arise, that when your name appears, they expect to learn."

That is encouraging to know. Thanks for that.

Your reference to the Boston University article provides context for what is going on, not just for employing foreign law, but the sad reality that if the law is not interpreted with original intent, it means whatever is currently expedient.

I did not mention this previously, but the flaw in the Reasoning of the man who wrote that article is this: Examining foreign law when a country is New, and searching for its way within the framework of a newly created legal system is one thing. Using foreign law after a nation has been well established for 250 years, and has since created it's own body of law, is quite another.

In the beginning we could sift through what was available and chose the good over the bad and thereby CREATE US law, but for administering US Law? It is completely nonsensical to look at foreign sources of law. Their laws hold no authority in our legal system.

The Distinction is between the Legislature and the Judiciary. Legislators may look at whatever source they choose to create law. The Judiciary should only look at Laws from withing the legal framework of our own Nation.

I once suggested to ‘rxsid’ that he compile his research into a book, and have the same recommendation to you.

I might get to that some day, but I have hard enough difficulty just getting it into an organized condition in a hyperlinked internet format. There is just so many puzzle pieces that fit together that it is difficult to get other people to see the entire mosaic which is created when you put ALL the divergent pieces together.

Things that you wouldn't think are connected, ARE connected, but the connections are often so nuanced as to be unnoticeable without great scrutiny. For example: How can Rawle express an opinion which is in such stark contrast to those legal authorities which surrounded him in the early Republic? Rawle MUST have read that book by Samuel Roberts "Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania" because it was probably the most significant thing which occurred in the Pennsylvania legal system during that time period.

Of COURSE Rawle knew of it. He knew who wrote it. (William Lewis (Samuel Roberts Legal Mentor) was one of his co-counsels in his famous 1804 case arguing for freedom for slaves born in Pennsylvania.) He knew Samuel Roberts PERSONALLY. He also knew the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Unanimously REJECTED his arguments in 1804. He knew his position was completely contradictory to the opinions of other Legal minds in Pennsylvania, yet he wrote something very different in his book. He wrote something which has misled everyone ever since. Why did he write it?

He wrote it because he WANTED it to be true, because it served his goal of Abolition of Slavery. Vattel did not serve this goal. William Rawle's intentional disregard for the opinions of better legal authorities than himself is understandable when you look at it from the perspective of what he regarded as the greater moral good; The eradication of Slavery.

That is but one example. Like I said, there are many bits and pieces which are confusing if looked at singly, but start to make much better sense when viewed in light of other bits and pieces. I have found out that there is MUCH more to the story of James McClure than most of you know, but i've been keeping it under my hat. I've been waiting for some documents to be researched in the national archives before I go any further on that topic.

I compare the campaign coordinated if not managed by Soviet agents to manage our attitudes toward communism to the "birther" campaign which has so thoroughly permeated our media, with almost no one willing to talk facts, and almost everyone claiming that "the Constitution doesn't define...", when the Constitution avoids definitions by design.

McCarthy was right. We are seeing the consequences of not listening to him today. Nowadays, the "Birther" smear campaign is waged by both sides. We Expect such stuff from the Democrats, but I was surprised at the degree of animosity directed at us from the Republican/Conservative side of the aisle. Those that are honest about it will admit their opposition is a function of pragmatism. They see the issue as a political loser and they just want it to go away. Establishment types simply aren't terribly interested in standing on a principle for it's own sake. If they don't see a political win in it, they don't want to bother with it.

The propaganda about presidential eligibility, some clearly paid for by our own taxes being used to effectively amend our Constitution, with public sentiment overruling the meanings communicated by our founders and framers, is what you and others here are countering.

Not very well i'm afraid. The herd mentality is a very difficult thing to overcome, as is the belief that "Experts" decide what is the truth.

A really ambitious work would include the clever and learned misdirection offered by Obama delegates, since so many of us have followed those paths before realizing that they were built to mislead.

On the surface, many of the Fog Bow type arguments appear reasonable. Often they tend to be misleading or the conflation of things as being exactly equal when they are merely similar. They tend to assert something as relevant, and then argue from that foundation. (Courts have Ruled!) for example. It takes EFFORT and a critical eye to see the distinction between what they allege, and what is the actual truth.

Now I need to go off and learn more about Samuel Roberts! Were you citing Roberts with “In the first seventy-five years of our independence...”?

Among others. Roberts was trained in Law by William Lewis. William Lewis was a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature in the Year they ratified the US Constitution. William Lewis ought to know very well what was intended by the meaning of "natural born citizen" and as near as I can determine, Samuel Roberts received ALL of his legal training from William Lewis.

As Samuel Roberts says that it is explicitly based on Vattel, we can only conclude that this is exactly what William Lewis taught him. William Lewis also preceded William Rawle as US District Attorney for Pennsylvania, a position of office for which Jeff Made so much of a fuss about when he was speaking of William Rawle.

I think one of the paths to blowing this issue wide open is to research the opinions of the Various prominent lawyers and Judges of Pennsylvania from 1776 to about 1820. Remember, the Constitutional convention occurred in Philadelphia, so the people most likely to know what was the intention of the delegates as regards the "natural born citizen" clause were those who were part of that environment.

Thanks.

You are very welcome.

[jwalsh07]

The Constitution states that you must be a “natural born citizen”. There are two paths to citizenship, one is natural, ie by birth, and the other is to be naturalized. If Cruz is a citizen and he has not been naturalized then he is a natural born citizen. There is no in between. Natural or naturalized citizens are the only two choices.

[Uncle Chip]

There are two paths to citizenship, one is natural, ie by birth, and the other is to be naturalized.

What about children of naturalized/naturalizing parents???

[NJ_Tom]

Impossible to argue with the documentary evidence you have provided. Presidential campaigns have always included a heavy dose of “negative campaigning” based on falsehoods.