Posted on 03/13/2013 6:01:43 PM PDT by Fai Mao
On Mar. 8, reporter Carl Cameron on Special Report on Fox News Channel was surveying potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates. Then he raised Ted Cruz--one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate--the new 41-year old Hispanic senator from Texas.
Cameron added, “But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible” to run for president. While many people assume that, it’s probably not true.
Cameron was referring to the Constitution’s Article II requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can run for the White House.
No one is certain what that means. Citizenship was primarily defined by each state when the Constitution was adopted. Federal citizenship wasn’t clearly established until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Constitution is not clear whether it means you must be born on U.S. soil, or instead whether you must be born a U.S. citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
No, he's been asserting that there is no Jus Sanguinis requirement for citizenship. Once again, your side has a real problem distinguishing between necessary and sufficient conditions.
the Initial drafts of Article II which was submitted by Alexander Hamilton and which required that one be merely "born a citizen" was voted down in favor of the current language....If they wanted the version you describe here, why change the Hamilton proposal?
There is no evidence that Hamilton's draft was ever presented to the convention, much less "voted down" as you claim. He did describe his ideas for the Constitution, which included a president for life as well as other features the delegates rejected. But according to the U.S. Archives, there was no draft until August, well after Jay's letter:
In none of the relatively meager records of the Constitutional Convention is the literary authorship of any part of the Constitution definitely established. The deputies debated proposed plans until, on July 24, 1787, substantial agreement having been reached [note: the day before Jay wrote his letter], a Committee of Detail was appointed...who on August 6 reported a draft which included a Preamble and twenty-three articles, embodying fifty-seven sections. Debate continued until September 8, when a new Committee of Style was named to revise the draft....they reported the draft in approximately its final shape on September 12.In short, there's no evidence that "born a citizen" was rejected in favor of "natural born citizen," so no evidence that they don't mean exactly the same thing (no evidence from the Constitutional Convention, at any rate).
Thank you. The whole interminable argument over the meaning of 'NBC' comes down to some very simple concepts, in my opinion. Concepts which the Framers well understood, and which have played out throughout mankind's history.
I certainly understand your suspicion of Obama.
I think he is a deceptive politician. And by a deceptive politician, I mean more deceptive than most.
And when you consider the baseline level of honesty for that particular group of people - politicians - well, where does THAT take us?
So I can certainly understand your suspicion of anything to do with Obama.
The meaning of “natural born citizen,” though, has is really a separate one from Obama’s personal sliminess.
Personally, I believe that to the degree we get sucked up into baseless theories, that makes conservatives look kooky. For one thing, it gives the liberal media the ability to paint us as such.
And to the degree we allow the media to (justifiably) paint us as kooks, I think that weakens the credibility of our legitimate criticisms of a President who legitimately deserves to be criticized the hell out of.
That’s a bit of why I feel this isn’t an unimportant issue. Aside from that (I think I said all this before) it bugs me to see people pushing things that I know just aren’t true.
That simply isn't true. I've presented what virtually every significant known early legal authority had to say about the subject of natural born citizenship.
Not one of them, except for the thoroughly discredited Ramsay (who was never a legal authority to start with) EVER says it takes anything other than being "born a citizen" or "born in the United States."
So we know what they said it meant. And what they said it meant is NOT what you and other birthers claim it meant.
In this case, it's not our Founding Fathers and early legal authorities who are wrong. It's you. And the fact that you are unwilling to yield to the entire lineup of all known early American legal authorities shows how far down the rabbit hole of absolute fantasy you have gone.
That is of course EXACTLY what I've been asserting.
DL claims to be so smart. But he can't even accurately identify what sensible people are talking about.
There is no evidence that Hamilton's draft was ever presented to the convention, much less "voted down" as you claim.
Once again, another false claim by DiogenesLamp, among so many. You are exactly correct: Hamilton's "born a citizen" language was never presented to the Convention. It only came to light at the end of the convention, when he handed in the notes he had been privately keeping so that they could be preserved for the historical record.
But hey, it's another idiot birther assertion that seems to support the argument, so let's throw it onto the manure wagon. Ahem, I mean the brown gold wagon.
In short, there's no evidence that "born a citizen" was rejected in favor of "natural born citizen," so no evidence that they don't mean exactly the same thing (no evidence from the Constitutional Convention, at any rate).
This is exactly correct. Will birthers like DL ever give up the claim? Hell, no. They will file it away, knowing it's as bogus as hell, to bring it up again on some other day. Just as they've done with every other debunked, bogus argument.
What did they have against J. Adams?
Do you have a reference for this claim? I've never seen it before and find it intriguing. Especially since being a French citizen, at least before the French Revolution, meant owing allegiance to Louis XVI.
That's your response? That's your response to the clear and historical evidence I presented as to what natural born citizen meant in early America, from the mouths of the greatest legal experts in history?
Your response is literally laughable, for a number of reasons. First, as already noted, Titus is NOTHING compared to the genuine experts I've cited. Second, Titus gives no argument or authority at all.
Here's your argument: Titus is a "Constitutional expert." We should believe him.
As many others have pointed out, equally valid is THIS argument: "Barack Obama is a 'Constitutional expert.' Therefore, we must believe him."
So your argument goes absolutely nowhere. Since Titus is virtually alone, in fact, with MANY more better qualified experts saying the OPPOSITE of what Titus says, the argument you are using, if anyone accepts it, ABSOLUTELY DISPROVES Titus.
So why do you make this idiotic argument? The reason is quite obvious: You're determined to believe Titus, no matter what. So you'll take whatever argument you can find, even if it quickly disproves you.
That's what it is to be a birther.
Except that Dear Leader had essentially zero contact with his Kenyan forebears while growing up and had no Kenyan neighbors. So unless there's a genetic component to hatred of America, this theory won't fly far.
Also, there was no Kenya when he was born to be a citizen of. Didn't exist yet.
In case you hadn't noticed, there are millions of impeccably multi-generational Americans who hold exactly the same hostility to our country as Dear Leader. That he acquired the hostility in the same way they did is much more likely than that he inherited it because biodad was a furriner.
No, you've cut and pasted in a collection of quotes around FR, which you believe support your theory of NBC. Not once on this thread have you even attempted to make the case for your interpretation, in your own words.
Jeff, I've now given you three chances to inform us as to why you believe what you do. Despite repeated requests, you've done nothing but rail against others' interpretations of NBC, and insist upon your own rightness (along with a liberal dose of ad hominems).
As I said in one of my earlier posts, you've proven able at assembling large quantities of words to throw at your debate opponents, but you've completely failed to convince anyone on the other side, with even the barest semblance of logic or reason.
In case you hadn't noticed, this a conservative audience. They're not easily swayed by boisterous naysaying and name calling. If you want to make a real case for your position, using those quotes you posted to back up your argument, then others will listen. If you're incapable of doing that, you may as well sit down.
It wasn't before the French Revolution. A lot of it came about during and through the French Revolution.
I don't have the references for Thomas Jefferson handy at the moment. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to track something down, as there's a lot of discussion about that one on the internet.
As for George Washington and James Madison, I gave references in the first post I made on them:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2994252/posts?page=103#103
Interestingly, the 1825 book that I reference discusses owing allegiance, at least in the case of Thomas Paine, who was the main topic of discussion. It says yes, he had allegiance to France, but that was subservient to his allegiance to the United States.
They did set it higher. The President is the only official that must be born a citizen as opposed to naturalized.
Were your children issued Certificates of Naturalization? If they weren’t, they’re considered to be Citizens of the United States at Birth.
Definition C in the US Code for Nationals and Citizens of the United States At Birth seems to apply to your family: “(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;”
The quotes speak for themselves. In no case (except, as noted, the case of the discredited Ramsay) do they ever even ATTEMPT to say that both birth on US soil and citizen parents are required.
Some of them even say CATEGORICALLY AND ABSOLUTELY that citizen parents are NOT required for anyone born on US soil to be a natural born citizen.
You look at those and think I should make some further argument. Well, actually, I did. You must have missed it.
It’s very simple, because the history and even the theory of this is far simpler than birthers make it.
1. “Natural born subject” came from natural law. The principle, which originated in Middle Ages England, which was a Christian nation at the time, came from the writings of St. Paul. The principle was that anyone born within a realm was by natural and divine law a subject of that realm and responsible to obey the authority that God had put in charge of the realm he was born into.
That is the NATURAL LAW behind “natural born subject.” And by that NATURAL LAW rule, any child born even to aliens resident in the land was a natural born subject.
2. The exact same rule (the US Supreme Court in 1898 said exactly the same thing I’m saying now) applied first in England. Then in the American Colonies. Then, in each of the United States after Independence. Then, in the United States after the establishment of the Constitution. “Natural born subject” became “natural born citizen” when we dropped the allegiance to a king. That is the ONLY thing that changed.
This fact of history and law has been clearly confirmed by multiple courts including Lynch (1844, New York) and most notably the US Supreme Court in US V. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.
The rule was never changed. It applied then to natural born subjects. It has applied throughout American history to natural born citizens. It applies even now.
It’s just not that hard.
And what I am saying is backed up by pretty much every significant legal authority in HISTORY.
Thanks. I still haven’t seen any proof that Jefferson, Washington or Madison “accepted” any French award of citizenship.
Chad might decide to declare that you or I are citizens, but that doesn’t, nor should it, have any bearing on our citizenship status in America. Now if I move to Chad or give open signals of allegiance to that glorious land, it still wouldn’t change my legal status, but my fellow American citizens would have good reason to suspect me of dual loyalties.
Still repeating the lie, I see.
-----
Windflier, I've already posted to Jeff the fact Wong Kim Ark was never determined to be a natural-born citizen
You can see his response for yourself.
-----
TOOT! TOOT!
Next stop, Rationalization Station!
LOL!
Both of my children have a birth certificate issued by the State Department. While I cannot recall the exact phrasing I believe the birth certificates are headed “Record of the Birth of a US Citizen Born Abroad.”
;-)
Why are only Republicans investigated as to eligibility when a foreigner with a shady past is never questioned because he’s a Democrat?
Windflier you said: “Jeff, I’ve now given you three chances to inform us as to why you believe what you do. Despite repeated requests, you’ve done nothing but rail against others’ interpretations of NBC,”
I asked Jeff this Tuesday night:
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:22:56 PM · 1,312 of 1,484
Cold Case Posse Supporter to Jeff Winston
“Do you like the idea that for a U.S. president to be eligible for the presidency, he has to strictly have two U.S. Citizen parents prior to his birth?”
His exact answer to me was this in his own words:
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:42:31 PM · 1,314 of 1,484
Jeff Winston to Cold Case Posse Supporter
“I frankly don’t care one way or the other. It makes no difference at all to me.”
So if Jeff doesn’t care one way or the other as he states, then why is he on this grand mission attempting to discredit anyone who says that both parents have to be U.S. citizens for one to become a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen?
Right. If they had been naturalized, they’d have Certificates of Naturalization.
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.