Posted on 05/09/2013 7:44:25 PM PDT by Nachum
Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz ranks Sen. Ted Cruz among the school’s smartest students, adding that the Canada-born Texan can run for president in 2016.
Cruz was a “terrific student,” Dershowitz told The Daily Caller. “He was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view. He didn’t strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian.”
“He had brilliant insights and he was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responses,” Dershowitz added.
Dershowitz also gave a high estimate of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren — who has decidedly different political views than Cruz.
Dershowitz says he and Cruz would often debate issues presented in Dershowitz’s criminal law class. “Cruz’s views were always thoughtful and his responses were interesting,” the law professor explained. “I obviously disagreed with them and we had good arguments in class. I would challenge him and he would come up with very good responses.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
You are saying Cruz is a Senator illegally??? Prove it!
Per the INA, Ted Cruz acquired citizenship at birth.
If he wants to run he can. No state will deny him a place on their primary or general-election ballot, any Electoral College votes he wins will be awarded to him.
Everything else is just NBC-Birther noise.
DL, I see that you're on this thread with your ubiquitous falsehoods, as always.
Anyone who want to know the truth can look up the original sources and see that pretty much everything you say is a misrepresentation of the truth.
We can start with this:
Jeff gets his @$$ handed to him every time I encounter him.
ROTFL. That's why you continually change the subject, I assume?
I just finished pointing out to him that his beloved "Wong Kim Ark" decision was made by the same court which gave us the Infamous "Plessy v Ferguson" decision. (Separate but Equal)
Yes, and you failed to mention that a) I never said any court was infallible, I only said that they got it right historically and legally on US v. Wong Kim Ark, and b) Plessy v. Ferguson didn't have a damn thing to do with the meaning of "natural born citizen."
Jeff just puts up a wall of nonsense which is so large that nobody bothers to read it, they just figure that if he posted all that crap, it must be true or something.
Just because you say "nobody bothers to read" what I post doesn't mean it's true. The fact is, quite a few people who are interested in knowing the truth do read what I post.
Not idiots who aren't interested in the truth, of course. There are some who studiously avoid reading anything that they're afraid of.
Get him down into the details and it comes apart like a cheap suit.
You're simply a liar. I don't think you can name even one point on which I've posted anything that wasn't true, or that didn't hold up to real scrutiny.
Oh, you've posted all kinds of stupid crap to claim it isn't true, of course. Because you don't like it. But it's YOUR CRAP that "comes apart like a cheap suit."
So, if Jeff is supposedly correct, where did this come from then?
Ah, once again the stupid birther game of bringing up crap that's been dealt with probably at least half a dozen times already.
Black and White, Published in 1817 and based on the Work of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Hey! You've stopped claiming it actually REPRESENTS THE OPINION of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court? ROTFL.
Yes, a book written by Samuel Roberts, who had the breathtaking portfolio of being a judge over several COUNTIES in Pennsylvania, a position of no national scope whatsoever, which expresses his own little opinion.
Ah, and the other great authority you have from early America is David Ramsay, who was not a lawyer at all, who wrote his citizenship treatise for the express purpose of running a sore-loser campaign to have the guy who beat him for a seat in the first House of Representatives declared ineligible, and who was VOTED DOWN 36 to 1 by the actual members of the House, a group led by Father of the Constitution James Madison, and which included 5 other signers of the Constitution.
Ah, but you don't give a crap about Madison, or the 5 other Framers who slapped Ramsay down, or about William Rawle, US District Attorney for the State of Pennsylvania, a position that actually DID have national scope, who was not only one of our foremost legal experts but also a good friend of both George Washington and Ben Franklin, who met with them personally every two weeks in the runup to the Constitution Convention to discuss with them and other leaders the issues that were pertinent as they tried to move the country forward.
Who, of course, absolutely, categorically contradicted little Sam Roberts, and stated in no uncertain terms that people born in the United States were natural born citizens whether their parents were citizens or not.
No. All THOSE folks - the Founders, and Framers, and our early legal experts - THOSE are the folks whose words you describe as (to quote you) "horse sh*t."
I am frankly surprised that you weren't been zotted as your just reward for that. If I had been one of the moderators, believe me, I certainly would've zotted you.
Meanwhile, if anyone reading this thread wants to know what "natural born citizen" and Presidential eligibility actually meant in early America, we have authorities who tell us.
We've already considered the two legitimate "authorities" you've presented in favor of the "birth on US soil plus two citizen parents" idea. Ramsay and Roberts. Not that they're much of authorities.
Now let's see what pretty much everyone else, including 40% of the signers of the Constitution, and all of the REAL legal authorities, and others who knew many of our most important Founders, had to say:
The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America
"Natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used interchangeably by State of Massachusetts (1785-1790).
This is important because it shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States. And "natural born subject" had a long legal history. All persons born in the country, even of alien parents, were "natural born subjects," except for the children of representatives of foreign governments, and of invading armies. Here are some examples:
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.”
March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In many or most of the States, in fact, the use of "natural born subject" in law gradually gave way to use of "natural born citizen" in the same circumstances. French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):
“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”
This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional"). One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.
James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
The First Congress (1790):
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.".
Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."
This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. This makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.
Between the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency, 16 signers of the Constitution - a full 40% of those who signed the Constitution - were members of the group who approved this Act.
French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):
“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)
By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.
Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.
Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):
"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."
Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.
Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.
French translation, (translated, 1799):
“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”
Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “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.”
Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):
“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”
Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship..
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):
“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”
And again.
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."
From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):
“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”
From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.
French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):
“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”
This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.
French books on the Constitution:
“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)
Born citizen, born a citizen.
“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)
Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.
By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.
Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.
American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:
“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”
Again: The rule was by the common law.
Another French translation, 1837:
“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”
Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.
Tennessee State Legislature, An Act to Regulate and Declare the RIghts of Foreigners (1838)
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
Clearly defines what "natural born citizen" meant to the Tennessee State Legislature in 1838. Anyone born within the limits of the United States was a natural born citizen without any regard to parentage.
From Spanish-language books on the Constitution:
“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)
Born a citizen.
“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)
Born in the United States. No mention of parents.
Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):
“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)
"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."
Native citizen.
Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):
“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”
America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. 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. ”
Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.
Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:
"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."
In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”
Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)
“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”
A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."
While not quite as precise as mathematical logic, when someone states “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” The verb “were”, past tense of to be, asserts equivalence or ‘the same thing as’. If “Natives” is the same as born in country of citizen parents, and “natural-born citizens” are the same, the two terms are the same by the transitive property of equality, which both languages of mathematics and English accept as axiomatic.
The reason citizens were left out of Justice Waite's statement is that the Constitution only defined one class of citizens. There are two, natural-born, and naturalized. Naturalized citizens are defined by men and our framers properly left those definitions to Congress, saying as much in Article 1 Section 8, telling Congress to create “an Uniform rule for Naturalization.”
Natural-born citizens are citizens by the ‘natural law’ upon which our Declaration and Constitution are based. Some prefer to say citizens by “God”. Either way, it was the predominant philosophy of the Enlightenment, and the basis for the legal philosophy not just of de-Vattel, but of Pufendorf, Bynkershoek, Leibniz, Wolf, Grotius, and dozens of others. Vattel didn't invent it, but wrote more clearly than most, wrote independently of the Vatican or Protestants, and at just the time that our founders were plotting to throw off the tyranny of a monarch they knew they could do better without. Ben Franklin read the original in French in 1759 and persuaded the publisher to prepare a hurried English translation. Franklin sent three copies of the translation to his colleagues in the Colonies in the early 1760s, including the Adams cousins and Jefferson. Jefferson made Vattel our first law text in 1779 at our first law school, at William and Mary, whose curriculum he designed.
The only reason our framers included natural-born citizens, a class understood for thousands of years, was to require that our president, and only our president and vice president, be natural born. Thus for purposes of the Constitution, you were natural-born, or an alien, probably naturalized by the laws of the state in which you lived or into which you immigrated, every state having differences in their naturalization laws. If you were born to citizens of that state, which couldn't have happened before 1776 (before that everyone was a subject, critically different from a citizen) on our soil, you were natural-born.
What about the early presidents? That was the “grandfather clause” of Article II. The 14 year residency requirement implied that if you were 35 years old when the Constitution was signed in 1787, you were 21 years old in 1773, eligible to be drafted, and have lived through the terror of the revolutionary war. If you didn't fight, you supported the effort because Royalists were vilified, many killed, and returned to England rather than stay. The founders fought for their freedom. Those naturally born were assumed to be the children of those who fought (See Dr. David Ramsay's “Dissertation on Citizenship”)
Upon reflection, our astute framers may have thought natural-born citizenship a strategic defense, since the founders knew why they fought, and risked their own lives, their families, and everything they worked for to win freedom. What might they do to try to insure the allegiance of the person with the most power in the nation? When we see our supposed defenders of constitutional originalism floating one naturalized citizen after another, Jindal, Rubio, Cruz, there are clearly forces, probably avarice for politicians, working to weaken our foundation. We have many more natural born citizens than naturalized citizens. Suzanna Martinez is natural born, Sarah Palin is natural born, Paul Ryan is natural born, ...
You posted that gigantic thread just to say that? And, then we still disagree. Oh, well.
Well, if you disagree, then you disagree with every signer of the Constitution known to have spoken on the matter, and all of our most prominent early legal authorities.
40% of the signers of the Constitution were in on specifying that children born abroad to US citizens were to be counted as natural born citizens also, as long as their father had ever resided in the United States - which fact alone (never mind the mountain of other evidence) simply destroys the idea that the Framers wanted "natural born citizen" to mean "born on US soil of two citizen parents."
Not that I expected you to do anything but "disagree." Birthers are impervious to any facts and any arguments. They wouldn't be birthers if they weren't.
HA! “Birthers.” That’s funny. I’m sure the Founders would think so, too. :-)
The Obama gang wants Cruz to run and for the House and Senate to vote to say he is eligible. Once that happens, Obama is legitimized, regardless of the phony BC.
The SCOTUS will only look at the matter if a Federal case works its way to them. As we have seen, the Judiciary wants no part of this decision and does not want to touch the definition of NBC.
If a case comes forward, the SCOTUS will likely not take it and take the position that BHO was elected twice and was not impeached, therefore the definition of NBC has been set at “born of at least one US citizen” and there is no issue to resolve.
Also, IMHO, I do not believe any conservative will not vote for Cruz for POTUS because they believe the definition of NBC is different than the SCOTUS and Congress have set. Too much is at stake and once Cruz is on the ballot, and the SCOTUS does not object, it becomes effective law and will not be subject to an Amendment drive due to lack of desire on the part of Congress.
Interesting.
So are you saying Cruz has an advantage?
(I think he’s a strong candidate, but does this confirm that?)
Should we be advocating?
And: For or against?
Billy can’t practice law. He’s on record as lying about his professional association with another attorney, and he’s admitted to failing to perform legal services competently, or as I like to re-term it, performing his job as an attorney incompetently.
He’s a vindictive individual, and he made quite a name for himself mocking the conservative right and libertarians behind anonymity.
And so it is that today, a graduate of Georgetown and law school at USC can’t get employment as an attorney because he’s suspended in California.
Instead, he’s a...a...florist...with a law degree.
Guess the florist venture failed too. What a loser.
http://www.screedofmomus.info/2012/06/stop-william-l-bryan.html
born in country of citizen parent
This was understood clearly at the time of the founders to prevent "divided loyalty" of a President, which they knew could threaten the nation. It was understood that a "natural born" citizen was born of citizen parents (plural not singular).
So, as much as I like Ted Cruz, he is not a Natural Born US Citizen as required by the Constitution for the office of president.
Is BHO, Jr? If BHO, Sr. is his biological father the answer is NO. BUT, if FMD is his father the answer is yes. So who really fathered the B_tard?
No, it wasn't.
"Natural born" had a clear, defined and specific meaning, which was known to everybody. At least, everybody with a legal education - which included 2/3rds of those who signed the Constitution.
Neither you nor anybody else can produce one single reference connected with the Framers in any way, that says a natural born citizen required two citizen parents.
On the other hand, there are literally dozens of quotes from early America, a good many of them from very authoritative sources - such as our most authoritative legal experts, and/or people who knew the Framers directly - which say that "natural born citizen" meant, or Presidential eligibility required, that a person be "born a citizen," or "born in the United States."
The Supreme Court exclusively defined NBC in Minor as “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” This is the nation’s highest judicial authority. No other SCOTUS rulings has differed from this definition and no lower court trumps the SCOTUS.
Barry's not running.
Absolute nonsense. There's not a single real authority in the entire country who says the Supreme Court "defined" "natural born citizen" in Minor.
In fact, the US Supreme Court itself quoted that passage in Minor for the express purpose of showing that that particular Court WAS NOT committed to the view that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents were not born citizens:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
You said:
No other SCOTUS rulings has differed from this definition and no lower court trumps the SCOTUS.
Certainly no lower court trumps the SCOTUS. But Minor never gave a "definition" of natural born citizen, they only observed that if you were born on US soil to citizen parents, then there was no question you were one.
Then they expressly said they weren't going to look into the question.
However, a later Supreme Court DID completely contradict your bogus birther claim: US v. Wong Kim Ark:
Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case::
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject 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.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"
Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:
The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:
"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."
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."
And they also told us that the sovereign, or KING has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well, when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.
It's all very straightforward. An elementary school child could understand it.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
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.
Wong Kim Ark was not the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state. He was not the child of an alien enemy in hostile occupation.
It is absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR that Wong Kim Ark fulfilled the rule that the Supreme Court said applied here, and that had ALWAYS applied here.
This is why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President. Because it is crystal clear.
It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases.
Because THEY ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE, in 1898.
It also explains why everybody with any knowledge or authority looks upon birthers as absolute kooks and nutjobs.
Some people have argued that since the Supreme Court did not explicitly state in the ruling, "Wong Kim Ark is therefore a natural born citizen of the United States," they "fell short" of finding him a natural born citizen, and only found him to be "a citizen" instead.
This claim completely and absolutely misunderstands or misrepresents how legal precedent works.
In any Supreme Court case, the core reasoning of a case, thoroughly analyzed, holds just as much precedent-making power as the final statement.
In other words, they don't have to restate a conclusion in the final statement, if they have thoroughly argued it during the reasoning of the case, and if it is central to the final conclusion. That is the case here.
We should also note that while birthers make this "they stopped short of saying Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen in the final statement" claim for US v Wong Kim Ark, they take the EXACT OPPOSITE approach with their pet case, Minor v. Happersett.
That case contains roughly TWO SENTENCES of side commentary which they think supports their claim. These TWO SENTENCES are not in the final summing up statement of the case. And the status of people born to non-citizens is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the resolution of that case, because nobody EVER suggested that Virginia Minor was the child of non-citizen parents.
Still, they insist that those two sentence of side commentary in Minor are "binding precedent," although they are completely unsupported by any authority or argument whatsoever, although they are completely irrelevant to resolving the case, and their conclusion is not explicitly stated in the final statement.
Meanwhile, they claim that the dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis in US v. Wong Kim Ark, although absolutely core to the case's final disposition, are entirely irrelevant.
It is 100% clear to any honest person that this is a thoroughly dishonest approach to the two cases.
Or to put it another way, it is simply a way of LYING about what these cases said.
The truth is that Minor had virtually nothing to say on the subject, and US v Wong Kim Ark handed down an absolutely clear precedent that natural born citizenship does not require citizen parents for persons born on US soil.
All of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling. Which of course birthers do, every day, since that is the only way they can possibly try to maintain the fantasy.
You knew all this already, of course.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the BS claim that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen. It's still absolute, total, complete BS.
This poster knows your Pitbulls are more loyal to America than the Kenyan in the White House.
What is it like to be a crazy disbarred attorney? Do you visit worlds more than Captain Kirk?
What is it really like to be crazy?
Van Gogh showed us in his paintings and Jeff in your musings.
The Supreme Court did in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and in modern times, the Indiana Appeals Court admitted that Minor defined NBC.
In fact, the US Supreme Court itself quoted that passage in Minor for the express purpose of showing that that particular Court WAS NOT committed to the view that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents were not born citizens:
You need to learn to read. That's not what that passage says. It was pointing out that the Slaughterhouse exclusions to the subject clause were not comprehensive exclusions to the 14th amendment because two years later, Minor unanimously excluded children born of citizen parents. That's why it gives the full citation of Minor's definiton of NBC and follows by giving the holding in Minor as being a citizen due to birth in the country to citizen parents.
But Minor never gave a "definition" of natural born citizen, they only observed that if you were born on US soil to citizen parents, then there was no question you were one.
No, they said if you were born on U.S. soil to citizen parents there was no doubt that you were a citizen. Then they exclusively characterized this group of citizens as natural-born citizens.
Then they expressly said they weren't going to look into the question.
No, they said there was no need to solve the citizenship doubts about people born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents. Since there was doubt about their citizenship, they could NOT be natural-born citizens. In context, "natural born" means with no doubts.
Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:
"Precisely analogous" does NOT mean "equal to." And nothing in this passage talks about natural-born citizens. That characterization was reserved as defined by Minor.
Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case::
These weren't compelling points. It's describing English law, not U.S. law. If that law had been compelling, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment.
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"
Right. That rule was in effect for persons born in the U.S. to aliens in some colonies, but not all. The Treaty of 1783 was used to separate natural-born subjects from natural-born citizens, based on the loyalties of the parents.
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
Except the court never said anything about making such a substitution and it never made any such substitution. Quit making things up.
First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."
The "rule" applied to the children of British loyalists. IOW, it was possible to be born in the U.S. at the time of the Constitution and be a British subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."
It didn't say any such thing. It was a quote from a North Carolina court. Justice Gray went on to cite several authorities that made similar types of declarations, but in the next section of analysis, he arrives at the Minor decision and affirms its exlcusive definition of natural-born citizens as those born in the country to citizen parents.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
NOTHING in Wong Kim Ark says this. You're trying to connect dots that Justice Gray was neither willing nor able to connect because he was compelled to affirm the UNANIMOUS Minor definiton of NBC. That's what happens when there is a legal precedent.
It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases.
No, actually it doesn't, because only a handful of courts have declared Obama to be a natural-born citizen, but they have not been consistent in citing any legal foundation for it.
Some people have argued that since the Supreme Court did not explicitly state in the ruling, "Wong Kim Ark is therefore a natural born citizen of the United States," they "fell short" of finding him a natural born citizen, and only found him to be "a citizen" instead.
The Indiana Appeals Court admitted that Wong Kim Ark was not declared to be a natural-born citizen.
In any Supreme Court case, the core reasoning of a case, thoroughly analyzed, holds just as much precedent-making power as the final statement.
Yes, and in Wong Kim Ark, the core reasoning was that Ark was a 14th amendment citizen by birth because he was born in the country to parents with permanent residence and domicil. Cruz doesn't meet this definition nor has Obama and of course both do not satisfy the Ark definition of NBC as cited from Minor.
In other words, they don't have to restate a conclusion in the final statement, if they have thoroughly argued it during the reasoning of the case, and if it is central to the final conclusion. That is the case here.
The conclusion you've come to was never stated in Ark, much less "restated."
That case contains roughly TWO SENTENCES of side commentary which they think supports their claim. These TWO SENTENCES are not in the final summing up statement of the case. And the status of people born to non-citizens is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the resolution of that case, because nobody EVER suggested that Virginia Minor was the child of non-citizen parents.
You need to worry about speaking for yourself instead of trying to misstate the position of so-called "birthers." You also don't understand the Minor decision. Virginia Minor claimed she had a right to vote by citing her citizenship under the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS rejected this argument and they did so by citing Article II and then by defining natural-born citizen. This was affirmed in Wong Kim Ark in two ways. One was a negative declaration that said:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The second was a positive declaration that NBCs are born to citizen parents.
Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. ...
Next, Wong Kim Ark restated the holding in Minor to be based on birth to citizen parents, which was NOT the same argument presented by Virginia Minor.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...
This is the last point in Wong Kim Ark where the term "natural-born citizen" is used. Gray opts for a different term through the rest of the decision, "citizenship by birth," which is only defined by the 14th amendment — but as noted, the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Meanwhile, they claim that the dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis in US v. Wong Kim Ark, although absolutely core to the case's final disposition, are entirely irrelevant.
Nonsense. The dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis affirmed that NBC is defined as birth to citizen parents and that the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizenship. The rest of the analysis was used to justify a separate type of citizenship by birth that was legally strong enough to justify superceding an international treaty to the contrary. But this type of citizenship was never called natural-born citizenship.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the BS claim that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen. It's still absolute, total, complete BS.
The only BS is what you just posted.
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.