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 ...
By the way, why do you promote the writings of a statist like Vattel?
I would think that you would be against statism.
Actually, he's talking about our nation as a federation of states, so he really is talking about the relation between nations. Anyway, like I said, if you want to give more weight to Tucker's quoting of Vattel on how nations get formed than to a direct quote from Vattel on what the law of nations covers, that's up to you. Seems like a reach to me.
Okay, but what about the fact that by choosing the citizenship of ONE parent, you deny the very existence of the other? No one has just ONE parent. I don't see why it would have occurred to them to rob a child of his/her foreign inheritances just because one parent was American.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Why would they have used a term other than one they were familiar with.
Because it's misleading! Because it implies that parentage isn't important, whereas according to you it's all-important! We agree that they were smart men who knew what they were about, yet you argue that they used language with a familiar meaning that was directly the opposite of what they meant. I just don't think they would have been that clumsy or shortsighted.
Thanks for the reference to Tucker's commentary. But I see that he's discussing denization and naturalization as two options for how to handle "alien friends," as distinct from natural-born citizens. And, in fact, regarding the latter, he says something that I think is damaging to your case:
Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.Another refining "or," saying that "natural-born citizens" and "those born within the state" are a single concept.
From the top of you Spamtabulous quote, here :
February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
SHOW me where is says they WERE natural born citizens.
------
NOTICE:
This post is not to be construed as permission to put me on a PING list!
If you are allowed to vote in federal elections, then our Constitution empowers you to participate in rendering judgement on the qualifications of presidential candidates and in exercising that power, you are free to rely upon whatever sources of information you deem to be important to your decision. If you conclude that, when our Constitution was adopted, ordinary American citizens looked to a Swiss philosopher to define for them the term "natural-born citizen" (a term Vattel apparently never used and may have never heard), then you are free to judge candidate qualifications based upon what you believe Vattel would probably have thought "natural-born citizen" to mean if he had ever heard it and thought about it.
Frankly, whether measured at the time of our founding or measured now, I don't think that anything more than a very small minority of ordinary American citizens believed then or believe now that we should, in defining "natural born citizen," defer to what we believe Vattel might have thought about the matter. The vast majority of ordinary American citizens and their constitutional electors (the people empowered to select our presidents) had then and have now more than enough collective intelligence and patriotism to make constitutionally appropriate judgements about candidate qualifications, even if you or I don't always agree with their judgement and even if Vattel would not always have approved of their judgement.
So, if you're wondering why the Supreme Court hasn't shown up to declare Obama ineligible by adopting your personal and very rigid views about the one and only true meaning of natural born citizen, it's because it's not the Supreme Court's job to select presidents or to rule on their personal qualifications.
There are two sides to this argument. One side maintains that as a safeguard to the Republic, the Framers intended—and in fact did—bar persons w deep & abiding foreign allegiances from seeking the WH. The other side says the Framers were fine w turning the country over to a person w irrevocable foreign allegiances [i.e.: foreign allegiances via birth].
Here’s the deal. For the first time in US history, the electorate, give or take a heaping portion of voter fraud, put a person w foreign allegiances in the WH. Now that individual has a known record: namely, he has a full term behind him & a good start on his second. So it is immanently possible to look at what he’s done & draw conclusions.
What I am asking you both is this. Cite a list of all the things Obama has done which prove that the magic dirt indeed worked in his case. That is, that the dirt trumped blood, and produced a citizen of the type the Framers had in mind.
This is not a complicated question. Just jot out a list of Obama deeds & accomplishments that, in your minds, underscore the wisdom of the Framers in opening the highest office of the land to persons w innate foreign allegiances.
I know that both of you will dodge this question somehow. Obama has in fact acted w vicious anti-American motives from the beginning. He has engaged in a relentless quest to undermine & destroy the country from the get go. This was entirely predictable. It is THE risk entailed in putting persons w irrevocable foreign allegiances in the WH. It is precisely what the Framers sought to spare us.
Yet you two argue otherwise. So put your $ where your mouth is and illustrate via his actual record how the country has nothing to fear from a POTUS w foreign allegiances. You can’t do it because we have EVERYTHING to fear from such a person, but go ahead anyway. Try to dodge away from the fatal disaster that your misinterpretation of the Framers has brought upon the country. Because either Obama is who the Framers wanted in the WH or he isn’t. You say he is; now prove it via his record.
That was never the point of the post, MamaTexan.
The point of the post was that the Massachusetts legislature used the two terms “natural born subject(s)” and “natural born citizen(s)” interchangeably.
First they said “natural born citizens.”
Then, in the exact same place, in the wording of a measure that was basically identical except for the people they were naturalizing, they said “natural born subjects.”
Then, they switched back: “natural born citizens.”
Then, they capitalized it: “natural born Citizens.”
Then they switched back again: “natural born subjects.”
Historically, we are told that we changed from “subjects” to “citizens.” It’s only reasonable and obvious that “natural born subject” changed to “natural born citizen.” Unless, of course, the Founding Fathers very clearly told us they were creating a new term that meant something very different from what the old term had meant.
The way that the Massachusetts legislature used the two terms anonymously and interchangeably absolutely supports the obvious idea that there was nothing different between the two terms except for the difference between “subject” and “citizen.” “Subject” implies subjection to a king. “Citizen” doesn’t.
And in fact, there really doesn’t exist any evidence that I’ve ever seen that would make even a half-decent argument against this obvious idea.
Yes, someone in 1797 - ten years after our Constitution was written - translated Vattel’s “natives, ou indigenes” as “natives, or natural-born citizens.”
But “natural-born citizens” is an obvious MISTRANSLATION of “indigenes.”
“Indigenes” implies people who are indigenous to a place. Just like the American Indians, or “Native Americans,” were INDIGENOUS to North America.
I’ve even looked it up in French. There seem to be two meanings. One is “native.” The other is very much “indigenous people” in the sense of the people who lived in a place before it was colonized by other people (generally, Europeans).
So what Vattel is saying is that he considers the really native, or the really indigenous people of a country, to be those born in that country of parents who were citizens before them.
His writing has nothing to do with natural born citizens in the United States of America, a country that didn’t even exist when he wrote his book. He never uses the term “natural born citizens,” and when his writing is translated using that term, it’s a mistranslation. Because “natural born” had a very specific meaning in law, and that meaning is not what Vattel was referring to.
The mistranslation was made 10 years after our Constitution was written. And no, it wasn’t translated that way because of our Constitution. The 1797 English translation of Vattel’s book, which used “natural born citizens” for the first time, was done in London, England.
So the historical evidence is clear. “Natural born citizen” is so intimately related to “natural born subject” that nobody ever even remarked on the difference. It is simply a modification of “natural born subject,” in which we replaced the word “subject” with the word “citizen.”
And there is nothing of any substance at all that might link the term to Vattel’s “natives, ou indigenes.”
But nations aren't States and States aren't nations.
It why why Washington DC isn't a 'state', but the District of Columbia.
It was my understanding your assertion was Vattel had no operation inside the US. I gave evidence via Tucker that the 10th Amendment, a part of our own Constitution, was a direct internal operation of Vattel.
Did I misunderstand the assertion?
-----
>>> MT - I don't see why it would have occurred to them to rob a child of his/her foreign inheritances just because one parent was American.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
In rebuttal of the 'only one parent matters' theology, or the continuing concept that somehow American citizenship can cancel out the citizenship of other nations.
[I think I actually flubbed up and grabbed a different part of that response than I intended, so I understand the confusion. Sorry]
----
I just don't think they would have been that clumsy or shortsighted.
In their defense, I don't think they were. Natural Law, or the Laws of Nature were well known to the Founders. Natural-born is a concept that goes way back. It is a blood Right. It is how Kings inherent thrones and children inherit property.
The only difference between these 2 phrases is the last words...subject and citizen.
Here we have no King. WE are sovereign...we are our own Kings.......each and everyone of us.
It's why the Founders called us SOVERIGN CITIZENS.
It's why they were always taking about our Natural, or 'inalienable' Rights.
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
---
But I see that he's discussing denization and naturalization as two options for how to handle "alien friends," as distinct from natural-born citizens.
That's right, because only the Nature of ones birth can make one natural born.
Let me try it this way-
In Tuckers commentary he explained the division of power in England - how a King could make a denizen, yet only Parliament could make a naturalized citizen.
He never mentioned how the King could MAKE a natural born citizen, because even a King can't do that. A King can proclaim someone to BE natural-born, and insist they are treated AS natural-born......but even a King cannot instill in someone a blood Right they never possessed. That blood tie CAN only be there one way - through the blood.
This actually ties right into the next part of your post with the Naturalization Act where the States were passing the 'grandfather clauses' concerning the naturalization of People becoming citizens of the new federal government..... Rights, priviligies and immunities OF natural born citizens.
*
Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.
Because that was the only 2 types there were. The federal government had yet to fully exist, so there were no 'naturalized' citizens.
The naturalization acts proclaimed the people that were in the States at the time of the Revolution to 'have the Rights, privileges, and immunities' OF natural born citizens, so they were considered natural-born.
Unless and until they professed a tie, or 'allegiance' to the country, they remained aliens.
• [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,
………. 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
-----
BTW - I actually meant to ask you in my earlier post:
How did you get started on your adventure into our past?
Show me what you asserted Jeff.
Show me where,
IN THAT TEXT,
as you asserted
it said they were 'natural born citizens'.
Don't rationalize, don't theorize, don't marginalize.....
SHOW ME!!
There are two sides to this argument. One side maintains that as a safeguard to the Republic, the Framers intended—and in fact did—bar persons w deep & abiding foreign allegiances from seeking the WH. The other side says the Framers were fine w turning the country over to a person w irrevocable foreign allegiances [i.e.: foreign allegiances via birth].
That's not exactly how I would put it.
I would put it that the Founding Fathers sought primarily to protect the fledgling country from the prospect that some royal dude over in England or some other European country might come over here, flash a lot of money, glitz, and star power, and take over the US government.
Europe had a history of exactly that: A king or queen from some other country could show up on the spot - particularly if there was a vacuum of existing royalty - and take over an entire country.
In fact, that was pretty much the NORMAL pattern of how things had long been done.
One of the actual MEMBERS of the Constitutional Convention had previously written to Prince Henry of Prussia, to see whether he might possibly be interested in becoming King of the United States.
As Max Farrand, expert on the Constitutional Convention, wrote:
During the sessions of the convention, but it would seem especially during the latter part of August, while the subject of the presidency was causing so much disquiet, persistent rumors were current outside that the establishment of a monarchy was under consideration. The common form of the rumor was that the Bishop of Osnaburgh, the second son of George III, was to be invited to become King of the United States.
This type of political intrigue (as well as the rumors of it) seems to have been the Framers' concern,
They do not seem to have been at all concerned about the possibility that a potential President might have parents from another country, or ideas from another country.
In fact, it is incomprehensible to me that people suggest the Framers wanted to protect us from foreign influence in the form of foreign ideas, and in the same breath swear that our idea of Presidential qualification came not from our own legal and cultural heritage, but from a Swiss philosopher.
Obama has in fact acted w vicious anti-American motives from the beginning.
You'll get no argument from me on that.
He has engaged in a relentless quest to undermine & destroy the country from the get go.
You'll get no argument from me on that.
This was entirely predictable. It is THE risk entailed in putting persons w irrevocable foreign allegiances in the WH. It is precisely what the Framers sought to spare us.
No, it is the risk entailed in electing politicians who are liberals, and who are caught up in harmful ideologies, or who are willing to sell out our country for their own gain.
Do you really think that John Kerry would've been much better? Do you really think the Clintons, who are prepared to sell just about anything to the highest bidder, are that much better?
Having parents who were not US citizens at your birth doesn't necessarily mean you're going to like other countries. It may well mean that you've seen the horrors of other countries and are actually more attached to this country than to any other.
Does Ted Cruz, for example, seem "unamerican" to you?
Yet you two argue otherwise. So put your $ where your mouth is and illustrate via his actual record how the country has nothing to fear from a POTUS w foreign allegiances.
I don't argue from what I think the Founding Fathers OUGHT to have done. I don't argue that they believed what I think they OUGHT to have believed.
I argue from what history says they DID DO. I argue from what history says they DID seem to believe.
Or do you think we should just toss out the Founders' ACTUAL actions and beliefs and decisions, in favor of what you or I or Joe-Bob feels they OUGHT to have done?
That, to me, is not a conservative position. It might be a patriotic position, in the sense that it is attempting to look out for the interests of our country, but it is not a conservative one.
In my opinion.
I never, EVER asserted that those particular people were “natural born citizens.”
If you imagine that I asserted that, then you somehow completely misread my post.
I suggest you go back to the reply I just gave you, and read it slowly and carefully.
It was a full, complete, and entirely accurate reply.
Again, I never claimed that naturalized citizens were natural born citizens. I claimed, accurately, that the Massachusetts legislature repeatedly used the term “natural born citizen(s)” and “natural born subject(s)” in a way that was completely interchangeable and synonymous.
This is a good indication that the two terms meant very very nearly the same thing.
I think you need to go back and stop just glossing over my posts, and read them very carefully word for word and think about them.
I don’t think I’ve been sloppy with my wording, or particularly unclear.
Of THAT one no. But you've been trying to build your entire argument on that fallacy for the last week over 2 threads.
So PROVE IT.
You missed my point. Here’s an analogy to help.
A prominent physician dies. Researchers pore over his notes for yrs afterward. It is noted that the physician isolated a certain virus. A dispute develops over what the dr intended to do w the virus. One side says he clearly meant it to be injected into human beings because it had beneficial properties. The other side says he explicitly warned against using it on humans.
After many yrs the virus is interjected into a human being for the first and only time. The subject dies.
The first side says the death is irrelevant. They continue to asseverate that the virus has beneficial properties—per their interpretation of the dead dr’s notes—and should be used again & again.
The second group says the death indicates their reading of the notes is the correct one.
This is where you stand, JW. You finally got your way and got a POTUS w divided loyalties by birth. He wrecked the country—on purpose—in a single term. The outcome was predictable, but you refuse to see any cause & effect. In fact, you’d do it again. The loss of the country is no price at all from your POV. Just so long as persons w foreign allegiances are allowed in the Oval Office, you’re happy.
I really don't know what supposed "fallacy" you think my "argument" is built on. Perhaps you can explain.
There's no "fallacy" here. The history and the law and the writings of the Founders and Framers and early legal authorities, and the behavior of folks like the Massachusetts legislature, and the recent court decisions finding that Mr. Obama, for example, is a "natural born citizen" as long as he was born in the United States, and the opinions of virtually every legal expert throughout American history, are all pretty darn consistent.
I suggest you go back and reread post 446 very carefully. For that matter, I suggest you go back and reread ALL of my previous posts very carefully. You don't seem to be getting what I am and have been saying.
Uh, no. That's stupid. You might as well ask me to jot out a list of Clinton deeds that underscore the wisdom of the Framers in restricting the highest office of the land to persons without innate foreign allegiances. It's arguing from effect: "I don't like this president, and I don't think the Framers would like this president, so they must have done something to prevent us from ever having such a president." They did: they trusted us not to elect one.
See my post 452.
Clinton didn’t purposefully try to destroy the country. That is the big difference. Not surprised you can’t see it.
Actually, Vattel (or the translation I see) uses the terms pretty interchangeably.
It was my understanding your assertion was Vattel had no operation inside the US. I gave evidence via Tucker that the 10th Amendment, a part of our own Constitution, was a direct internal operation of Vattel.
It's not an operation of Vattel. Tucker was just analogizing our association of states to a kind of nation--a "federal republic"--described by Vattel. It doesn't mean the 10th exists because it follows some principle Vattel laid out.
Natural-born is a concept that goes way back. It is a blood Right.
And yet "natural-born subjects" did not necessarily have a blood right to that status.
Because that was the only 2 types there were. The federal government had yet to fully exist, so there were no 'naturalized' citizens.
Okay, but what does that have to do with the fact that Tucker equates "natural born citizens" with "those born within the state." Doesn't that indicate that he thinks "natural born" status has to do with birthplace, not parentage? (And he even used the word "citizen," not "subject.")
How did you get started on your adventure into our past?
Reading birther threads here on FR. The "born in Kenya" arguments never carried a lot of weight, but the Constitutional questions were interesting, I thought. So I started reading and trying to figure out for myself what I thought, rather than relying on a bunch of other people's interpretations.
That's because you talk all the time, and say nothing.
That's stupid too. Nobody's arguing that the Framers recommended electing a president with foreign parents. Just that they didn't forbid it.
They were either for it or aqainst it. According to your interpretation they were for it. That is too insane a proposition even for you, so you try to parse your way out of it.
They were obviously against it, for obvious reasons. What Obama has done was entirely foreseeable & predictable. The Framers foresaw it and excluded him from the WH. You misunderstand their intent, and look where it gets you. Trying ILLOGICALLY to argue there is no causal connection between Obama’s foreign allegiances and his purposeful destruction of the country he hates.
Talk about stupid....
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.