Cruz likely eligible to be President

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.

I understand your point. I'm not sure you understand mine.

As a conservative, I regard the Constitution with a certain amount of sacredness. It is the fundamental law of our land.

For reasons of my own, I also regard the truth with a certain amount of sacredness. Maybe it has to do with growing up in church, and in a culture that very highly values honesty and truth.

I don't have a huge problem with your saying, "The Founding Fathers were wrong on this one. Or, at least, they were not capable of foreseeing what the world has become. The policy that they set up, by which they allowed people to be born on US soil of non-citizen parents and then grow up to become President, is not serving us well. We need to change it."

Now I might or might not personally agree with such an opinion. And, to be perfectly honest, I very well might not. I can think of several reasons why I might not personally agree with such an opinion.

James Madison, for example, didn't like the "tincture of illiberality" that he felt enshrining certain citizenship limitations on our legislators would introduce. He was not opposed to such qualifications, but didn't feel the Constitution was the place for them:

Mr. MADISON, was not averse to some restrictions on this subject; but could never agree to the proposed amendment. He thought any restriction however in the Constitution unnecessary, and improper. unnecessary; because the Natl. Legislre. is to have the right of regulating naturalization, and can by virtue thereof fix different periods of residence as conditions of enjoying different privileges of Citizenship: Improper; because it will give a tincture of illiberality to the Constitution: because it will put it out of the power of the Nat1 Legislature even by special acts of naturalization to confer the full rank of Citizens on meritorious strangers & because it will discourage the most desireable class of people from emigrating to the U. S. Should the proposed Constitution have the intended effect of giving stability & reputation to our Govts. great numbers of respectable Europeans: men who love liberty and wish to partake its blessings, will be ready to transfer their fortunes hither. All such would feel the mortification of being marked with suspicious incapacitations though they sd. not covet the public honors He was not apprehensive that any dangerous number of strangers would be appointed by the State Legislatures, if they were left at liberty to do so: nor that foreign powers would made use of strangers as instruments for their purposes. Their bribes would be expended on men whose circumstances would rather stifle than excite jealousy & watchfulness in the public.

I think Ted Cruz is a good argument against such a policy. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal may not be quite as good arguments as Ted Cruz, but they are arguments as well.

In any event, whether I would agree with such an Amendment or not, it is perfectly, absolutely, clearly LEGITIMATE political discourse to suggest that such an Amendment would be a good idea, to push for it, etc.

The thing that I have a problem with, is people saying that the Founding Fathers and Framers made such and such a rule, when it is very clear that they didn't.

Historically, legally, or otherwise, there is nothing of any substance to support the idea that THEY intended to restrict Presidential eligibility to persons born on US soil of two citizen parents.

There's nothing of any substance to support the idea that Vattel ever spoke about "natural born citizens." He didn't. He spoke of natives and indigenes.

There's nothing of any substance to support the idea that the Founding Fathers and Framers meant anything by the term "natural born citizen" substantially different from what they meant by "natural born subject," except for the difference between subject and citizen.

There's nothing of any substance to support the idea that the Founding Fathers or Framers looked to Vattel for their ideas on the definition of citizenship or any other domestic issue, including the right to keep and bear arms, government control of religion (Vattel was for it), and the ability of the government to physically and forcibly restrict its citizens from leaving the country and taking their talents elsewhere (another idea which Vattel was for).

So my position is: If you think that Presidential eligibility should require birth on US soil to two citizen parents, that's fine. Lobby for a Constitutional Amendment to make it so. Just don't misrepresent our history, our law, our Founders and our Constitution by claiming that's the way it already is. Because that particular assertion simply isn't true.

I hope that clarifies my position.

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.

LOL! Actually, that's exactly what the words 'express recognition' means.

This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations;

-----

And yet "natural-born subjects" did not necessarily have a blood right to that status.

True - jus soli subjects of England had natural-born status because the King said they did.

------

Okay, but what does that have to do with the fact that Tucker equates "natural born citizens" with "those born within the state."

In order to born 'into' something, one must have some type of attachment to it first. It's why aliens had to take an oath of allegiance before they were allowed certain privileges. The oath created the 'tie'.

The concept of allegiance in this country is not a physical tie, it's a political one.

Thus aliens took a political oath to create a tie to the political state.

A natural born citizens political tie comes through their parents....they are born 'into' it by blood.

--------

Reading birther threads here on FR. The "born in Kenya" arguments never carried a lot of weight,

Doesn't matter where he was born. The Law of Nations says children take the citizenship of the father, remember?

1963 Kenyan Constitution
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.
Chapter 6 - Citizenship - Section 87

Political attachments don't recognize physical boundaries.

-----

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.

A reasonable purpose, do please tell me you didn't mean the 'birther' part as some kind of pejorative.

Actually, that's exactly what the words 'express recognition' means.

So you think the Framers wrote the 10th because Vattel said that's the way our republic should be organized, rather than they wrote it that way themselves and Tucker, talking about it later, just grabbed the analogy to explain it? I don't think I agree, if so.

jus soli subjects of England had natural-born status because the King said they did.

But earlier you said "[Tucker] 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." So are you saying that some natural-born subjects were "really" natural born by blood, but others were only "proclaimed" natural born? Was this a functional distinction in any way?

Doesn't matter where he was born. The Law of Nations says children take the citizenship of the father, remember?

Vattel's Law of Nations wasn't a rule book, it was a philosophical treatise on the "Principles Of The Law Of Nature Applied To The Conduct And Affairs Of Nations And Sovereigns." Who cares what it says about citizenship? This is our country, we can make our own rules. Besides, as a Mama, I'd expect you to be a little unhappy with the idea that your kids could inherit their father's citizenship but not yours.

do please tell me you didn't mean the 'birther' part as some kind of pejorative.

I confess I've used it that way, but in this case, no. I've tried to come up with a different term, and on threads like these, dealing with just the Constitutional questions, I sometimes say "strict eligibility." But for the whole mishmosh of theories about why Obama's not eligible, "birther" is the only word I can think of.

Nobody's arguing that the Framers recommended electing a president with foreign parents. Just that they didn't forbid it.

Pardon the butting in, but the entire purpose of the Constituion was to limit the power of government. The 10th Amendment is the expression of this fact.

If the Framers had written down everything forbidden.....

Well, let's just say it would have taken up a lot more parchment than it does now.

It's called the Rule of Exclusion, and its roots probably go back past even English law.

• § 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation , 1833

So you think the Framers wrote the 10th because Vattel said that's the way our republic should be organized,

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Benjamin Franklin To Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, Philadelphia December 9, 1775.

NOTE: There's a 'do you agree to the terms of the website' when you get there. Just click through. Its one of the best resources for letters I've found.

-----

rather than they wrote it that way themselves and Tucker, talking about it later, just grabbed the analogy to explain it?

He was helping them write it and communicated regularly with members of Congress about the newly emerging Republic. A search here:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html
for the exact phrase St. George Tucker, brings up ONE HUNDRED returns. Read the letters for yourself.

I would, however, like to say, that despite several of the letters talking about slaves, Tucker was a staunch abolitionist.

-----

So are you saying that some natural-born subjects were "really" natural born by blood, but others were only "proclaimed" natural born? Was this a functional distinction in any way?

Yes. The Right of Inheretence concerning the 'excepting if the mother or father were aliens' part of the in the English law posted earlier in the discussion.

-----

Vattel's Law of Nations wasn't a rule book, it was a philosophical treatise on the "Principles Of The Law Of Nature Applied To The Conduct And Affairs Of Nations And Sovereigns."

Really?

Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law

-----

Besides, as a Mama, I'd expect you to be a little unhappy with the idea that your kids could inherit their father's citizenship but not yours.

Well, except my part of the family is just a decade short of being here for 400 years, and I pretty certain I've got a grip on the citizenship shell game., but I do sincerely thank you for your concern.

-----

But for the whole mishmosh of theories about why Obama's not eligible, "birther" is the only word I can think of.

Then since you are an exceptional case, I will never take offense of your using it.

;-)

“Unfortunately, we seem to have been trained by TV and the public schools to expect little tiny spoonfuls.”

Speak for yourself.

Speaking for myself, here’s the deal. I will read very, VERY long posts from people who have something to say. I’ll read entire books by people who have compelling points to make and who make them well.

You, JW, don’t do that. You just make the same old points over and over and over and over and over until I’m amazed that even the people who agree w you don’t get fed up. You don’t say fresh, thoughtful, interesting things. You don’t exhibit any particular insight. All you have is your ideology and the ideological blinders that insure you never see anything other than your own ideology. There is one word to sum up people who write from that POV:

BORING.

The second component that makes your posts, after the first four or five dozen, totally unreadable is your clinical detachment. Obama is destroying the country. For the most part, he’s already succeeded. To the average conservative this is a fact that elicits a genuine response. W you it doesn’t. You occasionally tell, w’out showing, that supposedly you ‘care’, but you only do it so you can get back to splicing together your neverending, stultifyingly repetitious/boring postathons that a person would have to be a certified masochist to read after a certain point.

Here is how you come across. We’re on the Titanic. The iceberg has been struck. People are reacting to it as best they can.

In the midst of it all, here you are, lecturing ad nauseum about how the Titanic is unsinkable. You quote endlessly from brochures & engineers, etc. When you can’t get people’s attention, you turn to newspaper clippings and note exactly how many times the ship was proclaimed “unsinkable”. In between quotes, you say, ‘& hey, it’s no big deal anyway. Ships hit icebergs & survive all the time.’ To make that point, you trot out lengthy stats re: ships that have survived an encounter w an iceberg.

All the while the Titanic is sinking lower and listing at an ever more precarious angle. In the end, like the cherry on a Sunday, you grab a passenger & say, ‘Your problem is a short attention span. TV & public schools are the only things keeping you from actually hearing all these great points that I am making.’

Look, here is the bottom line. You got what you wanted. A POTUS w foreign allegiances occupies the Oval Office. The country as we knew it is history. It’s gone and it’s not coming back. The connection between Obama’s foreign loyalty & his purposeful destruction of the country he wholeheartedly joins Jeremiah Wright in damning is the only thing you’re missing. I.e.: the connection between the iceberg and the rapidly sinking Titanic.

& you wonder, you actually wonder, why people get sick & tired of listening to you.

By the way, why do you promote the writings of a statist like Vattel?

I would think that you would be against statism.

I don't believe these people are statists. Apparently, Vattel felt that "natural law" compelled him to conclude that the State has a right to treat its citizens as little more than useful captives. I don't think that a lot of these "birthers" would agree with Vattel on many of these matters.

And, I think it's too easy to attribute something as bizarre as this Vattel fetish to just a willful refusal by "Vattel birther devotees" to accept the outcome of the last two presidential elections. I think there exists a capacity issue here - I think that some of these folks are incapable of accepting the outcome of the last two presidential elections.

The passage of four long years with no hint whatsoever that the Supreme Court agrees with any of their exotic theories about constitutional qualifications and the facts of Obama's birth means nothing to them. They can watch the Chief Justice volunteer to administer the oath of office to Obama for his second term without drawing any inferences about what the Chief Justice might think about their birther theories. They can watch the other justices go out of their way to attend Obama's second inauguration to again legitimize his presidency and continue to believe that those justices are eagerly awaiting an opportunity to seize the power to declare Obama ineligible. If a recently retired justice states that Obama "is clearly a natural born citizen" (as Sandra O'Connor recently did), they learn only that the retired justice is wrong, perhaps because she is ignorant, perhaps because she is corrupt, but in any event, just plain wrong. There is never any occasion for reconsideration, second thoughts or doubts of any kind. There is no capacity for that.

All you have is your ideology and the ideological blinders that insure you never see anything other than your own ideology.

No, do you know what your problem is with me?

It's that I DON'T write about history from ideology.

I write about history from the point of view of what actually happened.

And reality conflicts with YOUR IDEOLOGY. I get it.

Look, here is the bottom line. You got what you wanted. A POTUS w foreign allegiances occupies the Oval Office.

Huh. I guess that's why I voted against the sucker twice.

Here is how you come across. We’re on the Titanic. The iceberg has been struck. People are reacting to it as best they can.

Which in your case, means puncturing the lifeboat of the Constitution by poking as many holes in it as possible.

I'm simply saying: Don't try to address the problem by trying to punch holes in the Constitution. It's the best, and only, lifeboat we have.

And if you imagine that by twisting the Constitution that you are actually helping anything, you are, in my opinion, sorely out of touch with reality.

And by the way, if you don't like reading my posts, then don't read them. It's not as if I'm going to disabuse you of your fantasy anyway.

I know the Framers read Vattel's book, and I'm sure consulted it for guidance in some areas. A new country (I note that Franklin calls it a state) would have to think about its relations with other nations. I was specifically asking if you thought the 10th Amendment was there because of Vattel's advice.

Yes. The Right of Inheretence concerning the 'excepting if the mother or father were aliens' part of the in the English law posted earlier in the discussion.

The phrase was "notwithstanding their Father or Mother were Aliens." "Notwithstanding" means "in spite of the fact that," not "excepting if." The law (apparently) was to remedy a situation that prevented natural-born subjects from inheriting through non-natural-born parents. It seems a stretch to use that situation to say that American citizens should only be able to inherit their presidential ability through citizen parents--especially when that was regarded as a situation to be remedied.

In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people.

You're not really contending that Wilson is referring to Vattel's book in that quote, rather than to the generic term, are you?

Well, except my part of the family is just a decade short of being here for 400 years, and I pretty certain I've got a grip on the citizenship shell game.

And if one of your daughters were to marry a foreigner who declined to become an American citizen? (It happens.) I understand that you think their children would not be eligible for the presidency, but are you really happy with the idea that they wouldn't be American citizens at all?

There is never any occasion for reconsideration, second thoughts or doubts of any kind. There is no capacity for that.

I suppose you are right.

Not that I have ever held any real illusions of breaking through into the world of someone like DL with reality, through anything that I or anybody else might write.

I don't know that these people are even capable of experiencing cognitive dissonance from holding completely incompatible, inconsistent beliefs. Such as: The Founding Fathers adored Vattel and slavishly followed his teaching on citizenship... but ignored him on the right to keep and bear arms, the right of a state to control religion and set whatever level of taxes they wanted and to consider the citizen, basically to be the state's property...

I think such people, at some point, start making a decision to accept contradictory beliefs in order to believe what they want to believe.

After a while, it gets easier. Routine, even.

Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

I was specifically asking if you thought the 10th Amendment was there because of Vattel's advice.

I believe they followed Vattel a great deal, and have provided evidence that they did.

As far as having certain knowledge if the entire concept of the 10th Amendment revolved ONLY around Vattel without also relying on their own common sense, I can't say, as I am a researcher, not a psychic.

I would like to bring up however, Vattels words:

that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state.

Does that NOT sound an awful lot like 'freedom of association' to you?

-------

It seems a stretch to use that situation to say that American citizens should only be able to inherit their presidential ability through citizen parents--especially when that was regarded as a situation to be remedied.

Evidence has been provided that that was exactly what happened. You have totally lost me on the 'situation to be remedied' part.

Have you any evidence from that time period to counter it?

-----

You're not really contending that Wilson is referring to Vattel's book in that quote, rather than to the generic term, are you?

A quote from James Kent earlier said Vattel was the most quoted jurist in the last half century, so do you have any evidence it is not?

-----

I understand that you think their children would not be eligible for the presidency, but are you really happy with the idea that they wouldn't be American citizens at all?

My happiness will not always revolve around my children's choices, so my philosophy has always been to be happy for THEM...not for what they do or don't do.

Which is very sweet of you to ask, but my personal feelings would in no way, shape, or form, give me any desire to change what has to be the most brilliant document in recent history.

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.