Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.
President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Already did that. Massive numbers of threads are LITTERED with arguments about his "authority" Rawle. I probably know more about Rawle than Jeff does.
I've even kept some of my research on Rawle. A sample:
Rawle LOST that case, by the Way. The High Court of Errors and Appeals(Predecessor to the later named "Supreme Court") found UNANIMOUSLY against Rawle's arguments that English Common law made citizens of Slaves born here.
Rawle was undeterred. When he wrote his book, he got the last laugh.
DL has polluted this forum for the past 2 years not only with dozens of completely verified fallacies, but with profane and insulting posts like the one above.
The only thing he seems to add here is controversy, and even that is false and manufactured.
I don't make a habit of keeping examples of all the times I've refuted Jeff. They are so many and numerous I would clog up my bookmarks with samples of them. One I particularly remember is Jeff's CONSTANT AND NEVER ENDING assertion that (and this is an exact quote)
"And since day one, you have argued an interpretation of that Constitution that has no significant authority in the whole of US history behind it. Past, present or future. Conservative or otherwise. "
This is a link to at least the THIRD time I pointed out to him that NOT EVERYONE IN THE LEGAL UNIVERSE agrees with him.
Jeff will come back and say it again anyways. Just watch him. He's already said in this thread half a dozen times that "All significant legal authorities agree with me."
Most people would be too embarrassed to keep repeating something that is so demonstrably false, but Jeff has no sense of shame, he simply keeps repeating it.
Because frankly, you come across as that loudmouth at the bar that everyone detests.
Right back attcha dude. Right down to the name you picked.
(And I'm perplexed why my moniker offends you so greatly. I didn't begin the personal attacks on this thread--and it appears that every one of your comments is rude in some fashion. Why the hypocrisy?)
After Rawle died, his eulogy was published in a 45-page book. He was honored as a Christian gentleman of "the most devout and exemplary piety."
Of course, if you believe DiogenesLamp, he was a "liar."
He was both.
Washington was born in colonial Virginia in 1732.
Figuratively speaking, the King and Kingdom of England, to whom all colonists owed their allegiance, was his father. And the Colony of Virginia was his mother.
When the King and Kingdom of England went through a divorce with the Colony of Virginia, Washington, like all other colonists who adhered to the Thirteen United States, maintained their lifelong allegiance to the communities they had been born in, but severed their allegiance to the King and Kingdom of England.
This is explained by Father of the Constitution James Madison, in his speech on the citizenship of William Loughton Smith. In fact, he described the colonists' allegiance to the King and Kingdom of England as SECONDARY to their allegiance to their own communities, which began as colonies and then became States:
What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.
This reasoning will hold good, unless it is supposed that the separation which took place between these states and Great Britain, not only dissolved the union between those countries, but dissolved the union among the citizens themselves: that the original compact, which made them altogether one society, being dissolved, they could not fall into pieces, each part making an independent society, but must individually revert into a state of nature; but I do not conceive that this was of necessity to be the case; I believe such a revolution did not absolutely take place. But in supposing that this was the case lies the error of the memorialist. I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connection with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which they had for special considerations abolished. Suppose the state of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of government: Surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.
DiogenesLamp, among his other errors, claims against Madison that it's not possible for George Washington to have been a "natural born citizen" of the United States. This simply isn't true.
As Justice Gaston of North Carolina noted (later affirmatively quoted by the US Supreme Court in Wong) the terms "subject" and "citizen" were "precisely analogous."
When we changed "colonies" to "states" and "subjects" to "citizens," all those who were "natural born subjects" of a "colony" were then termed "natural born citizens" of a "State." Not much changed except the term used.
Or in other words, the only difference between a "natural born subject" of a "colony" and a "natural born citizen" of a "State" is that both the person and the political unit he was a part of gained their independence from the King.
All of this is in perfect harmony with the way real historians understand history. DiogenesLamp's wildly erroneous view leads him to conclude that George Washington would have been ineligible except for the grandfather clause. Or, to put it another way, the grandfather clause was REQUIRED in order for Washington, Jefferson, and our other native-born early Presidents to be eligible.
This is simply not the case. As noted above, real historians agree that Washington and Jefferson didn't need the grandfather clause.
When you're done with that "HOLE" in his reasoning, ask him why the 14th amendment was created.
As we've seen, the facts completely destroy DL's claim that there was a "hole" in my reasoning and expose him as either a fool or worse - take your pick.
I don't have time to comment on the 14th Amendment right now. I will try and do so later. Maybe tonight.
Q: How is Ted Cruz a "citizen?"
A: Because his mother was a "citizen" (who specifically met the requirements as stated by Congress, at that time).
Q: How is it that Ted Cruz got his citizenship via his mother, when he was born in a foreign land?
A: Because of the congressional statute that existed at the time of his birth, that required his mother to be a certain age (as defined by Congress at that time) and have certain residency requirements in the U.S. (as defined by Congress at that time).
Q: Can that congressional statute ever change?
A: Yes, of course, and has done so many...many times throughout the history of the federal Congress.
Q: Could the congressional statute that controlled Ted Cruz's citizenship status have been something different at the time of his birth?
A: Yes, of course. It could have stated that in order for a U.S. citizen mother, married to a foreign husband, to be able to pass citizenship to her child...that mother had to be 50 years old and have resided in the U.S. up until 3 months of the child's birth (unreasonable, yes. but certainly possible). It's totally up to Congress to decide those rules.
Q: Would foreign born Ted Cruz be a "citizen" of the U.S. if his mother did not meet the requirements as set forth in the congressional statute at the time?
A: No, of course not. Because if his mother didn't meet those requirements as set forth by Congress, she....wouldn't meet the requirements and Ted would not have been a "citizen" at birth.
Q: What powers (over "citizenship") does the Congress have per the U.S. Constitution?
A: The powers of "naturalization."
[The Congress shall have Power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Naturalization.
That's it.
Congress does not have the power to establish a uniform rule of who may be considered a "natural born Citizen." It's just not there.
Because foreign born Sen. Ted Cruz's citizenship status at birth had to rely upon a congressional statute (which only has the power of creating naturalization laws), he is a naturalized citizen at birth.
Attorney Apuzzo addresses this as well, in his latest article:
The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause:
"She (Squeeky Fromm) argues that Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g). Here, she makes the absurd argument that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” by way of a naturalization act of Congress. Using her logic, the “natural born citizen” clause would have no meaning or limits if Congress could simply naturalize anyone at birth which Squeeky Fromm then considers to be a “natural born citizen.” She looks to the Naturalization Act of 1790 for support. Regarding whether children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents are “natural-born citizens,” the Naturalization Act of 1790 does not help Squeeky Fromm because the 1795 Act, with the work of James Madison, repealed it and replaced “natural born citizen” with “citizen of the United States.” Despite her statement that Congress never did so, the 1795 Act, with James Madison’s influence, plainly shows from its text that “Congress intended to limit the rights of foreign born citizens at birth to some quanta less than that of a natural born citizen.” "
LoL ‘Squeeky Fromm’ - she is about as wacky and illogical as one can get.
Sorry, failed to ping dl to 626.
Since it references his errors, it is only appropriate that I do so.
Rawle, a very obscure historical character.
I've read about the Huns, the Vandals, even the poor Picts. Who are these FogBow people you rely on?
What I do know is that the Declaration of Independence does not tell us how we should pick our presidents. You need to focus on the Constitution. Everything you need to know is right there in that magnificent document. It was almost perfect (except for the bad parts). ;-)
Ted Cruz - 2016
You are asking Jeff if someone proved him wrong? What answer do you expect him to give you?
Asked and answered, thanks. Who’s trolling, now?
No you won't, you'll ignore them, gloss over them, lie about them, but the one thing you certainly WON'T DO, is to "correct" them.
Why did we pass the 14th amendment Jeff?
There are still some things I know biographically about Rawle that I've never even gotten around to writing about. He was an even better source than I've even written about.
Really? Did you find out he was a SECRET delegate to the Convention? Or perhaps he was a SECRET member of one of the Ratifying legislatures? Pray tell us, where did Rawle get his inside information as to the intentions of the Legislators who debated article II?
Just what source of Information was Rawle privy to which makes him a BETTER source than ever?
You don't have to agree with me. You have to demonstrate that you are willing to consider both sides of an argument. So far, you've been snarking out of Jeff's front pocket, and as far as I can tell, you're one of his little pets.
Why waste time with one of them?
You're not as dumb as Kansas58, but you're not nearly as smart or knowledgeable as Jeff either. (He is helped by the fact he's crazy, and he lies a lot.)
You should either do a lot of studying and pondering, or you should pick a topic more suited to your abilities.
Incomprehensible.
I also don't think anyone pays this theory of yours the slightest bit of attention. I only notice it because it seems to me to be a particularly bizarre argument.
Are you in Florida by chance? Most people outside of Florida really don't think of "Castro" when they are trying to come up with a socialist dictator.
As far as being someone's pet, even someone of your limited intelligence and defective memory should remember that I haven't been frequenting these birther (now, I will use the term pejoratively) threads, and I hadn't realized that Jeff Winston had gotten your goat [pun intended].
Basically, it appears that you wish to drive folks off this thread, on the basis of your disagreement with them. A disagreement that you can't be bothered to detail. It's always: "I've done this before," or "I've done this many times," or "Everyone is a liar but me."
Seriously, it's an indication of a very, very small mind.
ping to #637
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.