Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.
Snip~
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”
Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Aren’t you late to your garbage collecting job or something?
That garbage isn’t going to collect itself. It requires a brilliant mind like yours to pick it up.
You need to get off your mommy’s computer and tell her to lock it up to keep your little hands from meddling with it.
You will not get clarification from Kansas58. He is a special needs child who has somehow managed to get access to one of the center’s computers.
I hear ya. It’s kind of like a damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
By the way, nice work on your replies to the trolls. Tedious work but you do it well.
By the way, nice work on your replies to the trolls. Tedious work but you do it well.
Thanks. I find it amusing. Apparently they are good for something.
:)
Pretty much, though I think ‘formal oligarchy’ is a more accurate term.
In the legal world, there’s really no dissent. The Constitution does not mean what it says except in regard to numbers; two senators from each state, etc. All other meanings are at the whim of courts.
Yes, you are correct. I was in a hurry and just used the argument regarding "neo-fuedalism". Communism, was in practice, defacto Monarchy/Aristocracy.
In the legal world, there’s really no dissent. The Constitution does not mean what it says except in regard to numbers; two senators from each state, etc. All other meanings are at the whim of courts.,/i>
And nowadays we have so many people who are so brain-dead-stupid as to merely accept what they're told simply because they perceive it as having come from some legal authority. It's almost like we have taken to "newspeak" from "1984".
Not to mention the totally illogical concept that a person's NATURAL born citizenship which is derived from ones NATURAL parents somehow occurs via asexual reproduction.
Say what? LOL!
And yes, this is a state matter. One AG has to remove a putatively ineligible Presidential candidate from his state's ballot, which BTW THEY DO ALL THE TIME with candidates for lesser offices, and badda-bing-badda-boom, this eligibility thing is in the SCOTUS.
And that's where the hell it belongs. What is a citizen? What is a natural born Citizen? Why is there a difference? Defining these matters when appealed is the SCOTUS' job. WTF are they waiting for?
IMNVHO, for the Mombasa MF to leave town. And take Reggie Love with him.
A natural born citizen is a person with U.S. Citizenship who does not have to state an oath of allegiance or be issued a certificate to establish citizenship.I am a natural born Citizen, but my government rightly required that I prove this via various official certifications in order that I be issued a passport, but I never was required to go through a naturalization process, which I think is your intended point, i.e., natural born Citizens don't need to be naturalized.
The question we must ask ourselves is, while this certainly is a necessary condition to being a natural born Citizen, is it a sufficient condition?
I think the founders answered that question in the Constitution and in their use of the very phrase itself, natural born Citizen. Washington and several presidents following were not natural born Citizens, which is why they added the "grandfather clause" to the eligibility requirement. Yet, were these founders required to formally state an oath of allegiance or were they issued a certificate necessary to establish their citizenship? As far as I know, they were not. (Do you know otherwise?)
As you know, regarding presidential eligibility, the Constitution does not state that one must simply be a "born citizen," but specifically states that one must be a natural born Citizen. We also know that the founders labored, deliberated and debated over the content of the Constitution for many months.
When it came time to put quill to parchment they most certainly did not add superfluous, meaningless words. If they had meant to allow the broader category of "born citizen" they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to include the further restrictive qualification of being a natural born Citizen, which clearly excludes many types of mere "born citizens."
Note that the original founders were our new country's first natural citizens, yet they did not consider themselves to be natural born Citizens. This informs us, as is obvious from the very phrase itself, that natural born Citizen is an exclusive condition consisting of only the overlapping parts of its requirements.
Now, ask yourself, who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else? The answer is obvious - those born exclusively in country jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are the natural born Citizens.
Here is what Jeff Winston, BigEdLB, Kansas58, newzjunkey, et al are saying:
Born to American father and foreign national mother in a foreign country = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)
Born to American father and foreign national mother in a foreign country on US Military base = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)
Born to American father and foreign national mother in a foreign country in a US Embassy or consulate = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)
Born to American mother and foreign national father in a foreign country = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)
Born to American mother and foreign national father in a foreign country on Military base = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)
Born to American mother and foreign national father in a foreign country in a US Embassy or consulate = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)
Born to American father and American mother in a foreign country = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)
Born to American father and American mother in a foreign country on Military base = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)
Born to American father and American mother in a foreign country in a US Embassy or consulate = natural born American citizen (not a dual citizen or citizen by statute)
Born to resident alien foreign national father and American mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen)
Born to resident alien foreign national mother and American father in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of mother’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen)
Born to resident alien foreign national father and resident alien foreign national mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s and mother’s country(ies) (as they may be from different foreign countries) (i.e. not a foreign citizen, dual citizen or triple citizen)
Born to illegal alien foreign national father and American mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen)
Born to illegal alien foreign national mother and American father in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of mother’s country (i.e. not a dual citizen)
Born to illegal alien foreign national father and illegal alien foreign national mother in America = natural born American citizen but not a citizen of father’s and mother’s country(ies) (as they may be from different foreign countries) (i.e. not a foreign citizen (not subject to American jurisdiction) or dual citizen or triple citizen)
Natural born citizen = born citizen = naturalized citizen = dual citizen = triple citizen?
So, that word “natural” in “natural born” in the Constitution means nothing and was just a typo?
Seriously?
Birth Tourism and Anchor babies are a product of this nonsensical interpretation.
Grabbing everyone born on your land as a servant makes sense IN A MONARCHY. It is brain-dead-stupid in a Republic.
“Grabbing everyone born on your land as a servant makes sense IN A MONARCHY. It is brain-dead-stupid in a Republic.”
Agreed. Brain-dead-stupid AND fatal to the Republic.
Pardon the intrusion of a desperately deserved thrashing :-)
but the 'born within the borders' and 'born into a country' are the single MOST misunderstood concept of the whole thing, IMHO.
The Founders were NEVER talking about a physical location when they spoke of 'birth within the country', but a political affiliation. A man-made concept of a political 'tie'.
This is exactly what Madison said concerning the Naturalization Act of 1790 -
½ way down the page
Mr. Madison.--When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and declare their intention to reside in the United States. Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
This carried through to the Act of 1790 which even the people who fought the Revolution were subject to:
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application,
This administration of the Oath is also in the Act of 1795.
James Kent said this was STILL the standard in 1825:
• [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
---------
It is strictly a political tie... an 'allegiance', and it's the exact same concept noted by Blackstone.
OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES
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.
Chapter X , William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England i
------
Without the Oath, people remained 'alien', so being born on the soil of the geographical location we know as 'the States' or the United States has no bearing whatsoever on natural-born citizenship.
Without the Oath, there IS NO tie. Without the 'tie', there can be no *natural-born citizenship*.
Sorry if my post comes off as long-winded or snappish. I truly appreciate ALL the detailed research you've done on the subject.
It's just that this political tie concept seem so frustratingly simple to me. I can't believe I can be the only one who sees it.
I'm going to give you a pretty full and detailed answer to that question.
Because:
1. Rawle was a major authority, not a minor authority like Samuel Roberts, who ran the Court of Common Pleas for several counties in Pennsylvania. He was an authority not only by his legal acumen, position and stature, but also by his intimate personal association with our core Founders.
2. Rawle's view is in accord with every other major authority in the early United States who speaks clearly on the subject (e.g., Joseph Story, St George Tucker)
3. Rawle's view is in accord with every other significant authority in the early United States who talks about what a natural born citizen is, or what Presidential eligibility requires (see my list of some 30 or so early American authorities and what they had to say on the subject.)
4. Rawle's view is in accord with the general principle, expressed by James Madison, that place of birth was "what applied in the United States." Not place of birth plus parentage. Place of birth. And yes, parentage helped, and parentage by itself was suffiicient to make a natural born citizen according to the first Congress, but in general, the rule was "place of birth." This was also confirmed by Thomas Jefferson's 1779 jus soli rule for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
5. The view that you (and Samuel Roberts) espouse, which is contrary to Rawle's clear statement, is not in accord with the law of early America. Nowhere in the country, as far as I have been able to determine, was there any law or tradition that said persons born of immigrant parents were anything other than natural born US citizens.
6. Rawle's view is in accord with the law of early America. I haven't posted it yet, but in looking at the laws of the Thirteen Original States, there is good evidence that every single one of them either adopted the common law of England to the extent that it did not conflict with their own newer laws, or simply continued to operate under the English charter they had been founded with.
7. The only judicial authority in early America to review the question came to the conclusion that since every State of the Union adopted the English common law, and no State issued any contrary law or ruling, the common law of England, in regard to citizenship became the common law of the United States. After an extensive review, Vice Chancellor Sandford, in Lynch v. Clarke (New York, 1844) further commented:
Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
(Notice that after his extensive review of the law, he draws no real distinction between a person being a citizen at birth and being a natural born citizen.)
And further:
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
8. This understanding of Sandford and Rawle was fully affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1898. They said that the same rule had always applied:
First in England.
Then in the American Colonies.
Then in the early United States after the Revolution.
Then in the United States after the establishment of the Constitution.
An accurate expression of that rule, as applied to the United States (and subsituting our American terms that the Supreme Court specifically told us were equivalent to the English ones) would be:
"Aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the United States, are within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the collective body of the American People, and therefore every child born in the United States, is a natural born citizen unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."
So we should accept Rawle's view as the standard, not because of his authority, but because it is his view that is consistent with the history and law of the Founders and the Founding Generation, as well as with the ruling of the US Supreme Court on the matter.
“Rawle was an abolitionist. ...We have to consider whether his postition on slavery colored his view of who was a “natural born Citizen.”
John Jay was also an abolitionist.
New York, March 15th, 1776
Sir,
I have been favored with your letter of the 22d ult., and immediately communicated it to the committee of our society for promoting the liberation of slaves, and the protecting such as may be manumitted. They are taking proper measures on the occasion, and I flatter myself that our Legislature will interpose to prevent such enormities in the future.
It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.
Whatever may be the issue of the endeavours of you and others to promote this desirable end, the reflection that they are prompted by the best motives affords good reasons for persevering in them.
I am, sir,
Your most obedient and very humble servant,
John Jay
He ended a letter to Benjamin Rush on March 24th, 1785, with,
“I wish to see all unjust and all unnecessary discriminations everywhere abolished, and that the time may soon come when all our inhabitants of every colour and denomination shall be free and equal partakers of our political liberty”
“Yet, were these founders required to formally state an oath of allegiance or were they issued a certificate necessary to establish their citizenship?”
Yes, I believe they were required to state an oath of allegience to become a citizen of their state. George Washington’s mother, Mary Washington, remained loyal to the Crown even after her son led the revolution against the Crown.
Mary Washington was allowed to keep her land holdings in Virginia after the British were defeated, even though she remained a Loyalist until her death. Later, when the Constitution was ratified, only citizens of the states consisting of the United States became citizens of the United States. To my knowledge, Mary Washington never became a citizen of the United States. Yet, she remained in the United States until her death and passed on vast land holdings to her heirs.
So the considered opinion of every genuine early American legal authority and source close to the Founders and Framers is "argument from numbers?"
What do you call an argument from one genuine minor authority (who was over several counties in one state) and from one disproven quack? An "argument from a complete lack of numbers?"
Please explain to me how that is not utterly "retarded" (to use your terminology).
The only people in creation who don't agree are a bunch of quack law theorists, virtually none of whom have any legal training at all.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Heh. Next time you have a serious medical condition, I have a group of juju doctors you can go to. They don't have any medical training, but they've got some cool medical theories, and make extensive use of psychedelics. So the treatment is very enjoyable.
The Notion that we should strap the chains of feudalism back on us so soon after we had successfully thrown them off seems so contradictory that it is beyond belief that people such as yourself can even consider the idea plausible.
A rule for who is and is not a citizen is hardly the "chains of feudalism."
Do you sell cars in your day job?
Still using Goebbels old adage. REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT. It is you who are guilty of what you accuse.
I have chosen to repeat, repeat, repeat the truth because you have chosen to endlessly repeat, repeat, repeat fallacies, misconceptions, and twistings of our Constitution and our laws.
Anybody can look up my points and see that they are true. Anybody can look up my exposes of your numerous fallacious claims and see that they are, in fact, fallacious.
So the more you post, the more you expose yourself as someone who is determinedly pushing quack theories.
It should be obvious even to you by now that these theories and claims will never go anywhere. Not only will no court in the land ever rule in favor of these false claims, no major conservative Constitutional body (such as National Review, Heritage Foundation, etc.) will ever support them.
And even in the tiny corner in which you've been able to repeat the false claims, you are thoroughly embattled. There are a few people who still believe them, but not anybody who actually does the research and reading and looks at the evidence of history and law with a cool head.
It's just another of DL's numerous fallacies. This one (the claim that Rawle shouldn't be listened to because he was an abolitionist) is so minor I don't think it deserves coverage.
But it shows that DL is so committed to his fallacious Constitutional claims, hey, what's one or two more fallacies?
In for a penny, in for a pound. As the English say.
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.