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 ...
There goes that projection again. I’ve noticed you do it a lot. You’re the one who brags on how well your posts make your points, how well they’re constructed overall, etc. Not everyone is as enamored of their own words as you are, JW.
Perhaps that’s why you post so relentlessly, and at such great length. You imagine the world just cannot get enough of your ‘I’m right & you’re wrong’ wisdom dispensed from on high.
Me, I read your posts up to a point. Then I realized I was wasting my time. People don’t have an infinite amount of patience for hot air. You exceeded mine.
So don’t read them.
They can’t possibly do you any good anyway.
Tsk tsk. What a gargantuan ego you have. You really do have a high opinion of yourself. Now if you could just get others to stop making fun of your pretentiousness, you could maybe come off as less of a blowhard.
Here’s a bit of reading for you. The author gets it right save for the final paragraph. The rest is worth the time, however:
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/14/does-obama-doom-america
Not particularly. I’ve simply done enough reading to know that there’s nothing to the idea that it takes birth on US soil AND two citizen parents.
It’s not in me. It’s in the history, the law, the facts, the writings, the court cases, all of it.
All of it is consistent.
Heck, even the arguments FOR the idea are consistent. They either overstate a tiny amount of possible evidence, misrepresent people, or draw conclusions where conclusions can’t reasonably be drawn.
I hope you’re ~18, 21 or 22 at most. That would mean there is still time for you to mature & gain wisdom/insight. Otherwise...the prospects look bleak.
The article had nothing to do w NBC/eligibility. Not everyone is as weirdly uber-obsessed w that one single issue as you are.
Okay. So I AGREE with that author.
That doesn't mean that we should savage the Constitution, though. The Constitution is our only hope.
You don't seem to get it. We have a faithful horse that has served us well for 225 years. We have a man in charge who is beating that horse with a whip.
And you propose, rather than attacking the man who is beating the horse, to attack the horse along with him.
It just doesn't make sense.
We may have been operating on an erroneous assumption here.
I decided to go straight to Blackstone himself.
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.
He narrows it down to 3 types;
These are the principal distinctions between aliens, denizens, and natives: distinctions, which it hath been frequently endeavoured since the commencement of this century to lay almost totally aside, by one general naturalization-act for all foreign protestants.
Blackstone's Commentaries, Chapter X
----
The words 'notwithstanding' and 'to inherit' both only appear once, and both in footnotes.
I don't know where the Ark court got it, but I don't think it was from Blackstone.
I wasn’t referring to the article in my previous post. I had not read it. I referred to the article in my next post.
Whatever.
The likelihood is that the great majority of the founding fathers gave the term "natural born citizen" very little thought at all. When the Constitution was crafted, there were big issues at stake. What should be the status of slavery? How can small states be protected from political abuse by larger, wealthier states? It was compromises on these huge issues that made the Constitution possible. They spent less time than the good folks at Free Republic thinking about the precise meaning of terms like "natural born citizen" or "Letters of Marque and Reprisal."
Moreover, if we are to trust Justice Scalia, the important question is not how the intellectual elite of that day defined these terms; instead, the important question is what those terms meant to ordinary citizens:
"The Second Amendment provides: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that '[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation."
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Back in those early days, how many ordinary citizens paid any attention to Vattel's theories? How many read "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law" in English? How many read it in its original language? How many had ever heard of Vattel? How many thought it would be practical to try to determine with certainty the identity and citizenship of biological fathers more than 35 years after a birth?
The entire Vattel birther pathology is grounded in elitism. Ordinary citizens now and ordinary citizens at the time of our founding know/knew nothing about Vattel or 18th century Swiss "natural law" philosophies. But, these Vattel fans manifest nothing but contempt for ordinary citizens. They view them as ignorant (meaning they don't read translations of Vattel) and certainly not to be trusted to judge for themselves the qualifications of presidential candidates because there is no assurance that they will first read and fully understand translations of Vattel to discover the one and only true meaning of "natural born citizen."
So, to hell with ordinary citizens! What we'll look for instead is a few elitist lawyers/politicians at the time of our founding who may have had a copy of Vattel's work in their libraries. That's the best we can do.
And, yet, after four long years, they continue to wonder: Why won't the Supreme Court attempt to intervene to tell the world that Obama really isn't the president? He's NOT the president. It just can't be!!!
They're going to keep on feeling that way until it soon won't even matter anymore.
I have to say, I think you're dodging a bit. You quoted Tucker quoting Vattel, commenting on the 10th Amendment, to support the idea that the law of nations does govern what happened within a nation. But when I ask whether you think the 10th was the result of following Vattel's advice, you just say "I believe they followed Vattel a great deal." That's awful vague.
This is an ongoing problem, in my opinion, with the strict eligibility-ists' use of Vattel. When they think they can draw a direct line between his words and those of the Constitution or the Founders, they're adamant about the connection; but when other words of Vattel are in direct opposition or contrast to the principles of our nation, suddenly it's time for hedging. If you want to say they picked and chose what they wanted, that's fine, but then, unless there's an explicit statement of the connection, you can't claim any particular thing reflects Vattel.
Evidence has been provided that that was exactly what happened.
I'm sorry--evidence has been provided that American citizens should only be able to inherit their presidential ability through citizen parents? What evidence is that?
You have totally lost me on the 'situation to be remedied' part.
The English law establishing that natural-born subjects could inherit through their alien parents reads
Whereas divers Persons borne within the Kings Dominions are disabled to inherite and make their Titles by Descent from their Ancestors by Reason that their Fathers or Mothers or some other Ancestor (by whom they are to derive their Descent) was an Alien and not borne within the Kings Dominions For Remedy whereof Be it enacted....That all and every Person or Persons being the Kings naturall borne Subject or Subjects within any of the Kings Realmes or Dominions shall and may hereafter lawfully inherite and be inheritable as Heire or Heires...from any of their Ancestors lineall or collaterall although the Father and Mother or Father or Mother or other Ancestor of such Person or Persons by from through or under whom he she or they shall or may make or derive their Title or Pedegree were or was or is or are or shall be borne out of the Kings Allegiance and out of His Majesties Realms and Dominions as freely fully and effectually to all Intents and Purposes as if such Father or Mother or Fathers or Mothers or other Ancestor or Ancestors by from through or under whom he she or they shall or may make or derive their Title or Pedegree had beene naturalized or naturall borne Subject or Subjects within the Kings Dominions Any Law or Custome to the contrary notwithstanding.In short, in 1698 England fixed the situation whereby natural-born subjects with alien parents might be barred from inheriting through them. So by the time the Founders were writing the Constitution, the only distinction we know of between "born" NBSes and "proclaimed" NBSes had been inoperable for 90 years, and the use of the word "remedy" might suggest they thought the prior situation had been a mistake.
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?
So wait--you can pick out any mention of the "law of nations" that you want, and I have to prove it's not a reference to Vattel's book? That's kind of ridiculous. But okay, let's look at other references from Wilson's lecture:
The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations.and on and on. Are you seriously going to tell me those are all references to Vattel's book? Or is this another case when they're references to Vattel when it suits your purpose and somehow not when it doesn't?
The law of nations, as well as the law of nature, is of obligation indispensable: the law of nations, as well as the law of nature, is of origin divine.
it was the study of the works of Lord Bacon, that first inspired Grotius with the design of writing a system concerning the law of nations.
What you call vague, I call honest.
I was not there. I have not come across anything to the contrary. I cannot say for certain. I could be lying if I say yes, but conversely, I could be lying if I said no.
Would the phrase I don't know suit better?
I can verify Vattel, in the hands of the Founders at the time and place of the creation of our country. If you need more 'evidence' than that, I can't help you.
-----
When they think they can draw a direct line between his words and those of the Constitution or the Founders, they're adamant about the connection; but when other words of Vattel are in direct opposition or contrast to the principles of our nation, suddenly it's time for hedging.
Complaints are not evidence.
-----
If you want to say they picked and chose what they wanted, that's fine, but then, unless there's an explicit statement of the connection, you can't claim any particular thing reflects Vattel.
And you cannot say for certain that the Founders did not use Vattel for the entire Constitution, now can you?
Obviously Vattel was used for something, or Franklin would not have said when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
-----
The English law establishing that natural-born subjects could inherit through their alien parents reads
I've shown how the law is here, so I really no reason to go backwards in legal concepts.
I will do so if you wish, however you will need to provide me with a linked source for the material.
-----
Are you seriously going to tell me those are all references to Vattel's book?
Wilson said -"in free States such as ours". Vattel also used the term "free States". I also gave a quote to support the popularity of Vattel at the time.
Again, do have any evidence to the contrary?
------
Or is this another case when they're references to Vattel when it suits your purpose and somehow not when it doesn't?
Pardon? I don't understand the repeated accusations of hedging, or the comment of using something when it suits me an failing to do so if it doesn't. I think I've been consistent in my position.
Would you please show me where I have acted in such a manner? I certainly don't recall it.
I wasn't thinking that the Ark court used the words. I got them from the name of the British law: "An Act to enable His Majesties naturall borne Subjects to inherite the Estate of their Ancestors either lineall or collaterall notwithstanding their Father or Mother were Aliens."
From: History of Parliament Trust
Statutes of the Realm: volume 7: 1695-1701
I'm sorry, but this is at least 50 years prior to Blackstone [1753].
You think this is relevant.... why?
I'm sorry, I think I'm allowing some frustration to affect my tone.
Here's the way it appears to me: when I say the law of nations has to do with the relations between states, not internal politics, you counter with a quote from Tucker about the 10th Amendment that references Vattel. Then when I ask if you believe the 10th was based on Vattel (as opposed to Tucker just using it as a point of comparison), you say "I don't know."
When I ask you for an example of how the distinction between "natural" NBSes and "proclaimed" NBSes played out in practice, you bring up the inheritance issue. When I show that the inheritance issue was resolved in favor of the two types being treated the same way, long before Constitutional deliberations started--and that the resolution was called a "remedy"--you say "I really no reason to go backwards in legal concepts."
When I say that Vattel's book wasn't a rule book for nations and we didn't have to adopt his view of citizenship, you counter with a quote from Wilson that says "the law of nations is the law of the people." When I say he's not talking about Vattel's book, you ask me for evidence that he's not; and when I offer other examples of his use of the phrase that obviously don't refer to the book, you ignore them and bring up a different phrase altogether and ask again for evidence that he's not.
I've ended up with the impression that you run from one point to the next without bothering to stitch them together into a consistent, coherent argument. When a particular point gets uncomfortable, you just drop it. It's difficult to pin you down. I'm not sure I have the energy to continue with what seems like a fruitless game. If you're going to cite something and then, when asked if you think it really means what you implied, just say "I don't know," then I don't think there's any point to continuing.
See? That's what I mean. In 467, I asked 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?
and you replied in 469
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.
You used it as an example, and now you're asking me why it's relevant. If you can't keep track of your own arguments, I don't have the energy to recap them for you every time.
Fair enough. I'd really like to apologize for being the source of it. I'm seriously not trying to be.
----
Here's the way it appears to me: when I say the law of nations has to do with the relations between states, not internal politics, you counter with a quote from Tucker about the 10th Amendment that references Vattel.
Okay, may have already found one. Relations between States, I got. What do you mean by 'internal politics'. As in the federal governments relations to the states, a states internal relation with itself?
-----
Then when I ask if you believe the 10th was based on Vattel (as opposed to Tucker just using it as a point of comparison), you say "I don't know."
LOL! I should have warned you. You are dealing with someone whose own mother told her she was honest to a fault [true story]
Anyway. What you're asking me for is certain knowledge, and, to me, if I can't stand up in front of a judge and swear to it, it's not certain knowledge. I wasn't THERE so I can't answer it either way!
Oh, Dude, I am so, SO sorry!
-----
When I ask you for an example of how the distinction between "natural" NBSes and "proclaimed" NBSes played out in practice, you bring up the inheritance issue. When I show that the inheritance issue was resolved in favor of the two types being treated the same way, long before Constitutional deliberations started--and that the resolution was called a "remedy"--
I really though you pulled it from Ark and it came from Blackstone. I had no idea it was as old as it was on the outset until I couldn't reconcile it with what I remembered of Blackstone. That's when I started questioning it.
Blackstone was the English standard, that's why Tucker annotated it.
-----
When I say that Vattel's book wasn't a rule book for nations and we didn't have to adopt his view of citizenship, you counter with a quote from Wilson that says "the law of nations is the law of the people."
I was using Wilson's Lectures on Law to show that the law of nations was, indeed a rulebook for nations. First, because it operated the way the Constitution was originally supposed to. With the people at the top of the government food chain. Secondly, that the government acknowledged the fact, and third because yes, I know of the popularity of Vattel at the time and a great deal of what Wilson says is similar.
-------
When I say he's not talking about Vattel's book, you ask me for evidence that he's not;
Okay. Back to the honesty thing. I put something out to back up, if you will, what I'm saying. Now, questioning is fine, but you're asking me to prove a negative after I just proved a positive...while you still haven't proven anything yet.
Maybe it's just a bad habit of mine. I've been on way too many threads where I offer proof after proof after proof, and I'm continually asked for more. I've spent literally days doing this, so I've finally just gotten to where I go 'your turn'.
-----
and when I offer other examples of his use of the phrase that obviously don't refer to the book, you ignore them
Please do show me anything I missed. I try to catch everything, but if you made a point and I ignored it, please do point it out to me.
-----
I've ended up with the impression that you run from one point to the next without bothering to stitch them together into a consistent, coherent argument. When a particular point gets uncomfortable, you just drop it. It's difficult to pin you down.
Not my intention at all. I hope you understand that.
-----
I'm not sure I have the energy to continue with what seems like a fruitless game. If you're going to cite something and then, when asked if you think it really means what you implied, just say "I don't know," then I don't think there's any point to continuing.
Again, always your call. I've sincerely enjoyed it and am most certainly not trying to bring frustration into your life. Life does enough of that on its own.
Maybe it's just my bad presentation skills.
I'm sorry, but by all rights the mistake could have been discovered at the outset had you put a source up for what you were contending to be true.
You didn't even know the year, all you gave was a name. I had to search for the facts myself.
I've been sourcing everything all along.
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.