Cruz likely eligible to be President

Big Givernment ^ | March 11 | Ken Klukowski

[Jeff Winston]

So the child of a US citizen serving in the US Embassy in London or Paris, and born in the London Maternity Hospital or the American Hospital (in Paris), would not be eligible to be president?

Yep. That's another of the logical consequences of the "both-and" doctrine of natural born citizenship.

You can add all the children of US military troops serving overseas into that as well.

[Fantasywriter]

Go back over the threads of just the past wk & add up the # of words you’ve expended. It’s bizarre. You’re not even obsessed w the subject—it goes beyond obsession. & no, the self-righteous cloak you tossed over it doesn’t acct for your over-the-top zealotry. It’s as if you have no life apart from making the liberal case [for putting individuals w foreign allegiance into the Oval Office for the express purpose of destroying the country].

Your tag line ought to read: Obama: the Framers’ ideal POTUS—and I will prove it even if I have to cut and paste 1,000,000,000 words on the topic’.

[DiogenesLamp]

We can go through every bit of your "evidence," if you like, and show what c*ap it is.

No, we cannot, for YOU are incapable of doing it. All you can do is to continue to assert you are correct, and that you understand history, and that you understand the law, and that any thing which contradicts your view of your own understanding is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

You are a legend in your own mind, but a reasonable person you are not. I doubt you can put together an argument which is not some form of a fallacy. And when people aren't impressed by that, you lie by omission (and commission I suspect) with a good dose of ad hominem thrown in in an attempt to brow beat.

[Jeff Winston]

I'm sorry, but James Madison, the Father of Our Constitution, disagrees with you about whether the early America-born Founders and Framers were natural born citizens of the United States. He said, during the debate regarding Smith's eligibility to the House:

I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, as a member of a new community; that he was absolved from a secondary allegiance that he had owed to a British sovereign.

Let's go over that, word by word.

James Madison, Father of the Constitution.

The topic was CITIZENSHIP.

And Madison, the Father of Our Constitution, says:

EVERY PERSON (that is, every person born on American soil prior to the Revolution)

...who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, as a member of a new community;

So here Madison clearly says, just as I have just said, that EVERY PERSON BORN IN AMERICA BEFORE THE REVOLUTION HAD TWO ALLEGIANCES.

He had an allegiance "TO THE PARTICULAR COMMUNITY IN WHICH HE WAS BORN."

And he had an allegiance "TO A BRITISH SOVEREIGN."

And what does Madison say happened when we split from England?

He says that such people WHO RETAINED THEIR PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE TO THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY WERE BORN WERE ABSOLVED FROM A SECONDARY ALLEGIANCE THAT THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY OWED TO THE KING.

What ELSE does he say happened?

He says that SUCH PEOPLE RETAINED THEIR BIRTHRIGHT.

And WHAT WAS THAT BIRTHRIGHT?

Remember that he is speaking in the context of Smith's eligibility, due to his CITIZENSHIP.

IT WAS THE BIRTHRIGHT OF MEMBERSHIP, BY BIRTH (REMEMBER THE WORD "BIRTHRIGHT?") IN THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY WERE BORN.

In other words, such people were MEMBERS, or CITIZENS of those communities IN WHICH THEY WERE BORN.

Their PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE was TO THOSE COMMUNITIES.

Their SECONDARY ALLEGIANCE was to the King.

Thus their PRIMARY BELONGING was to those communities WHICH BECAME THE UNITED STATES.

James Madison, the Father of Our Constitution, says you're full of it.

People such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, born on American soil, retained their membership in the communities they were born in, which became the United States of America.

Because of this, they were considered NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of the United States.

And if you look at the reason WHY, historically, the grandfather clause was passed, it seems to be generally agreed that it wasn't for the sake of these people.

It was for the sake of folks like Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson.

[Jeff Winston]

You are a legend in your own mind, but a reasonable person you are not. I doubt you can put together an argument which is not some form of a fallacy.

That's a rather odd statement, coming from someone whose arguments have been repeatedly shown to be fallacy after fallacy, addressed to someone whose argument have not been shown to be fallacious.

And when people aren't impressed by that, you lie by omission (and commission I suspect) with a good dose of ad hominem thrown in in an attempt to brow beat.

That's a rather odd statement, coming from someone who omits the entire record of what early legal authorities said "natural born citizen" meant, and who attempts to paint those who present the historical view, which is agreed upon by every substantial conservative Constitutional organization in existence, and by conservative Constitutional experts like Mark Levin, as a "troll," an "Obot," a "liberal," and worse.

[MamaTexan]

It might be a good idea to look at the process concerning aliens in the early part of our history.

[3rd paragraph from bottom]

In 1825, they passed a general and permanent statute, enabling aliens to take and hold lands in fee, and to sell, mortgage, and devise, but not demise or lease the same, equally, as if they were native citizens, provided the party had previously taken an oath that he was a resident in the United States, and intended always to reside therein, and to become a citizen thereof as soon as he could be naturalized, and that he had taken the incipient measures required by law for that purpose.

........ that every person of good character, who comes into the state, and settles, and takes an oath of allegiance to the same, may thereupon purchase, and by other just means, acquire, hold, and transfer land, and after one year's residence, become entitled to most of the privileges of a natural born subject.

………. The article in the constitution of the United States, declaring that citizens of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, applies only to natural born or duly naturalized citizens, ........
James Kent, Commentaries

Conclusions:

1] aliens had to take an oath of allegiance and/or residency before they were even allowed to hold land in some States.

2] the Oath of allegiance/residency was required prior to applying for naturalization

3] Constitutional privileges and immunities applied only to natural born or duly naturalized citizens, and

4] Residency and naturalization processes emanated from the States.

------

This being the case, how does someone who has never even applied for residency give birth to a natural-born citizen?

If nothing else, this would seem to question the concept of automatic natural-born citizenship.

[MamaTexan]

Jeff, I will ask you politely, one time.

Remove me from your ping list.

Thank you.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's good. You've shown you can distort a person's words to pull attention away from the substantive points.

Those ARE your substantive points. Were it not so, you wouldn't have used such language. The underlying theme of your argument is "You are a moron because you do not agree with what *I* tell you."

Of course you're quite skilled in word-twisting. You've been doing it with the words of people like Jacob Howard, James Monroe (in the Eldred affair),

Yes, quoting him verbatim is completely unfair. I should truncate his statement in the manner you did with John Bingham's words and meaning. As you have set the standard for deceit, I am way behind and need to catch up.

the United States Supreme Court (in Minor and Wong) for a long time now.

Yes, pointing out that a Chief Justice of the Supreme court is unable to find the definition for "natural born citizen" written into the 14th amendment is just a dirty trick.

Chief Justice Morrison Waite. March 29, 1875

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I would never, for one second, make a single assumption about what you think based on the words of someone else.

Fair enough. Mr. Fantasy made a long post about the people you are "engaged with," and you said you agreed with every word, so you can see why I took it personally.

It's true I don't believe the Founders intented foreign citizens to give birth to natural born citizens without having gone through the naturalization process themselves, and it's true I believe the purpose of that intent was to prevent someone with questionable loyalties from holding office.

I don't claim to know for sure what the Founders intended, but the lengthy reasoning in Wong Kim Ark has convinced me that if they intended to close off that possibility, they did a lousy job of it. And since I don't generally think they did a lousy job, I suspect they were okay with the scenario you describe.

More to the point, the people we entrust with figuring out what they intended--the Supreme Court and other judges--seem to me to have come down pretty clearly on the "born here = NBC" side.

[DiogenesLamp]

Just plain creepy.

Yes, i've noted this myself. It befuddles me that people are motivated to keep pushing a nonsensical interpretation with all of it's ridiculous consequences such as "anchor babies" and "birth tourism" etc. Mr. Rogers I understand. He has personal and emotional reasons for wanting to believe such a thing, and I highly suspect this is likewise the case of many who come here and argue this issue.

For many of them, the issue is personal because it affects how they view themselves or people they care about.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'll tell you what's "at the bottom of this guy's obsession on the subject."

I'm tired of people, year after year, spouting the same stupid nonsense, and misrepresenting the Constitution and the Framers and the Founding Fathers.

I'm tired of people putting for bull**** as "truth."

I'm tired of people deceiving and misleading conservatives.

I'm tired of people spreading myths and falsehoods as if they're the gospel truth.

No you don't, else you would SHUT UP! YOU are the one promulgating the most idiotic crap, and YOU are the one deceiving and misleading conservatives. You are presented evidence which absolutely should not exist were your theory correct, but you simply dismiss it or call it lies.

You are the enemy of reasoned debate. You are pretty much a troll who does nothing but churn the waters with massive verbiage so that people cannot carefully consider the issue or look at the evidence.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

If this is true, how did Bellei lose his citizenship?

He lost it because he didn't fulfill a residency requirement for someone in his category (since abolished, as I understand it). This is one of the cases around the edges I mentioned before, because I've seen cases like his called "automatic naturalization." But if he had fulfilled the residency requirement and retained his citizenship-from-birth, I don't think anyone would have challenged his eligibility for the presidency.

[MamaTexan]

More to the point, the people we entrust with figuring out what they intended--the Supreme Court and other judges--seem to me to have come down pretty clearly on the "born here = NBC" side.

That's part of the problem.

The Founders believed that certain laws affected all nations equally and these laws were not within the power of man or man's government to change.

There is some contention as to if a particular version was used or several were used to come to a consensus, but most generic name for these laws is the Law of Nations.

Are you familiar with the Law of Nations concept?

[DiogenesLamp]

Yep. That's another of the logical consequences of the "both-and" doctrine of natural born citizenship.

You can add all the children of US military troops serving overseas into that as well.

Again, you can pretty much guarantee that anything which Jeff says about this issue is utter crap. If Article II "natural born citizen" is based on the founders understanding of Vattel, then Vattel's understanding of the concept applies.

According to Vattel, the children born to those who are out of the country in the service of the Nation are indeed "natural born citizens."

Jeff is trying to wheedle people into buying his arguments by appealing to their emotions (it's unfair to deny natural citizenship status to the children of soldiers) rather than their intelligence. Most of his arguments share this characteristic. He isn't even correct in his emotional blackmail attempt.

[Fantasywriter]

I didn’t know about the ‘personal & emotional reasons’ you mentioned. It makes perfect sense, however.

My take is that in the other cases it rests on the primary liberal fallacy of the day. I.e.: that the only sin/evil in the world is ‘discrimination’. Thus, since the Framers were not evil people, they would never have discriminated against citizens of foreign parents. From that point irrationally takes over and all hope of a logical, common sense conversation is lost.

It’s a case of projecting modern-liberal PC attitudes onto the Framers. Problem is, the Framers weren’t PC. They DID elevate preserving and protecting the Republic above hurting the feelings of foreigners & their offspring. They saw exactly what would happen when and if a person w foreign allegiance made it into the WH, and they sought to head that disaster off at the pass.

Well modern liberalism defeated their effort, and the entirely predictable results ensued. Obama is having the time of his life actively and purposefully destroying the country he hates. Magic dirters look at Obama’s swath of irreversible destruction and say, ‘This is what the Framers intended’. Sane people look at it and say, ‘If only we had listened....’

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm sorry, but James Madison, the Father of Our Constitution, disagrees with you about whether the early America-born Founders and Framers were natural born citizens of the United States. He said, during the debate regarding Smith's eligibility to the House:

In the Same manner that John Bingham disagrees with me. You are simply distorting Madison's point. Madison usage of the word "place" is not a simple geographic boundary. If it were, he would need add nothing to it.

But Madison goes on to explain what he meant by "place." He meant born to a long established family in a long established community, and therefore bound to that community by societal and familial bounds.

You are just leaving out Madison's version of "allegiance to no other sovereign", same as you did with Bingham. You are like a one trick pony in this regard.

I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your verbiage. I am confident it too is crap.

[BuckeyeTexan]

There are a significant number of “facts” being thrown around this thread by both sides, when in reality there are only three facts:

1. There is only one group of citizens whose natural-born status cannot be questioned and that is those born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents.

2. We can make arguments for and against all other groups.

3. Until the SCOTUS rules on whether or not statutory citizens at birth are natural-born citizens under the meaning of the Constitution and therefore eligible to the presidency, doubt exists.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's a rather odd statement, coming from someone whose arguments have been repeatedly shown to be fallacy after fallacy, addressed to someone whose argument have not been shown to be fallacious.

No Jeff. It is only in YOUR MIND that my arguments have been "repeatedly shown to be fallacy after fallacy." In the real world, you haven't scratched them at all. You probably don't even believe this yourself. If you did, you wouldn't likely be so worked up about them.

That's a rather odd statement, coming from someone who omits the entire record of what early legal authorities said "natural born citizen" meant, and who attempts to paint those who present the historical view, which is agreed upon by every substantial conservative Constitutional organization in existence, and by conservative Constitutional experts like Mark Levin, as a "troll," an "Obot," a "liberal," and worse.

Jeff, every statement you make is odd, especially those in which you keep imploring the spirit of Mark Levin to come and save you. I have not been debating Mark Levin, and frankly I think he would come off the worse for it if I were, but Mark Levin's offhand agreement with you does not constitute proof of anything. George Will and Ann Coulter happen to agree with me. Does it prove me correct?

Again, this is the fallacy of false authority. (since you don't like the original Latin names, I thought I would make it simpler for you.)

[MamaTexan]

You are the enemy of reasoned debate. You are pretty much a troll who does nothing but churn the waters with massive verbiage so that people cannot carefully consider the issue or look at the evidence.

It's been happening on a predictable basis pretty much since the thread began.

Every time we get the focus of the discussion down to a fine point, we either get a heapin' helpin' of SPAM or we're treated to the short feature - "Why Denial is Not Just a River In Egypt"

[DiogenesLamp]

More to the point, the people we entrust with figuring out what they intended--the Supreme Court and other judges--seem to me to have come down pretty clearly on the "born here = NBC" side.

Which doesn't make it true, It just makes it what gets enforced. Roe v Wade is also in that category.

I would further point out that Minor v Happersett was unanimous. Regardless of what you think the decision means, one thing can be ascertained from it with great confidence. All the Judges were in agreement on the conclusion, and it therefore has a better probability of being correct than a non-unanimous decision.

Wong Kim Ark, on the other hand, was a 5-2 decision, with Justice Mckenna not taking part in the decision. Of the 5 member majority, only one was a Southern Democrat. (and by his subsequent decisions, appears to sympathize with Republicans) The two opposing Judges were Democrats.

It is not difficult to imagine that politics played more of a role in their decision than did actual law.