I think I might know.........
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 ...
Well, you're clearly some kind of genius, there's little question about that, but pardon me for wondering if you really know more about our original Constitution than William Rawle, the guy who wrote a treatise on our Constitution after working as a Philadelphia lawyer during the time that that city was hosting our Constitutional convention. As a contemporary and percipient witness to the preparation of our founding charter, I'm thinking that possibly Mr. Rawle might have gained some insights that have perhaps escaped your unique and peculiar genius. Do you think that's possible?
I think I might know.........
All I can say is that if this Vattel fellow wanted to assist me in my small role in selecting our presidents, he would have written his book in English, not in French. I don’t really blame him for any of this because I don’t think he had any idea that a handful of crackpots in the twenty first century would try to hijack his little book, distort its meaning and then attempt to harness it for evil purposes. He has my sympathy.
Any possibility of the Supreme Court taking action on this issue has long been moot. The argument that the Supreme Court does not have the POWER to do anything, is nonsensical, because they can do anything they d@mn well please, and CALL it legal, but that topic is also moot.
The probability though, is that if the Supreme Court DID take up the Case, and DID find Obama to be "ineligible" because he hasn't demonstrated himself to be a "natural born citizen", regardless of what legal arguments you advance, that would be political death blow to Obama's administration. Legal power is not the only power wielded by the Court. If they SAY it, people will accept and believe it, regardless of what someone else claims the law says or means.
Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the birthers, what follows? Impeachment in the House, and removal by the Senate. Anyone care to lay odds?
That has been debated much also. Some assert that impeachment would be unnecessary because an ineligible President can be regarded as never having been President in the first place, but as I pointed out, the legal arguments are not the ONLY force which would remove him from power.
The POLITICAL argument (he's an illegitimate usurper, and the Supreme court SAYS so!) would either pressure him into resignation, or possibly produce sufficient anger in the country to demand it.
Not going to happen though. The best shot we ever had was getting any state to pass a law requiring proof of eligibility before allowing him on the ballot. Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona screwed us over on that one.
In other words, instead of lobbying their respective State legislatures to tighten eligibility requirements, a notable goal, they expect the Supreme Court to parachute in and overturn two elections. It's silly.
No, what is silly is how you misstate the opinions of many here into a caricature of what they actually are. This is often referred to as the "Straw man" tactic. You state your opponents position in a ridiculous manner, then you mock it. In doing so, you are beating a "Straw man" rather than a real opponent.
Once again, if the Supreme Court had RULED that he wasn't a Natural Born citizen, and therefore ineligible to be president, he would have a hard time trying to hold on to the office.
Furthermore, no one is saying that such a solution is viable now. It needed to occur EARLY in the process, because no remedy is possible if you wait too long.
Beyond that, this discussion has long been past the point of any potential usefulness in getting rid of Obama, it is now an academic discussion concerned solely with correcting a false understanding of the meaning and purpose of Article II's "natural born citizen" clause.
If anyone expects any actual political consequences to occur as a result of this discussion, they are just espousing a futile dream.
And those people are idiots. Who are you, Katie Couric now? "Some say . . . ."
"You are failing to state your case" is not a strawman argument.
Nor is, “I’ve stated my argument elsewhere” a valid one.
Really, Jeff?
#295
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."
----
First. Tucker did not ‘equate’ native born with natural born. Read it again-
Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes:
It’s talking about ALL the people inside the States, Jeff. BOTH natural born citizens AND aliens inhabited the States.
To continue
natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it
Remember, these people are ALL inside the State! Natural borns already have an ALLIGENCE to the State because of their parents, so they are born 'inside' of it.......and despite being inside the physical location of the State AT BIRTH, aliens are STILL born 'outside' of it.
---
BTW – You messed up on this part too-
approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
Nowhere does Tucker ‘approvingly quote’ anyone else in this work. Until you can point it out to me, that is an outright falsehood.
Down from your quote, Tucker continues:
(snip)
This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people.
Here’s the source you practically always fail to provide, Jeff…… for those aren’t looking for your twisted version of the ‘truth’..
Jeff responds:
I honestly can't think of much of anything.
I am Shocked! Shocked! I tell, you to discover Jeff has never been refuted!
The idea of persons of "birth right citizenship" who have illegal parents took root in the late 60s. Just being born in the United States was not automatic US citizenship. A perception started to changed in America that came about after Kennedy's immigration 1965 legislation that eliminated the so-called ‘national origin’ quotas, and as usual, the LSM had a large influence. Under the 1940s - 60s 'Bracero' guest worker program, migrant worker's children born in the United States were not deemed US citizens, and when they took their children back to Mexico, no one considered their children US citizens.
There is no court decision or even an executive order that makes illegal immigrants children born in the United States US citizens. All an acquiescence by politicians and with that a change in perception that assumed otherwise. I
I find it possible that Jeff thinks as highly of himself as you do, yes.
If you still wonder why the Supreme Court hasn't jumped in waving a copy of Vattel, you need only read the Constitution to discover why. There isn't any mystery as to the proper constitutional actors in the presidential selection process and the Supreme Court isn't included.
As for me, I have to wonder where all this madness will lead you in the future. If it comes down to Clinton vs. Cruz, or Clinton vs. Rubio, or Clinton vs. Haley, or Clinton vs. Jindal, will your passion for Vattel wane?
There is, of course, another possibility. Perhaps, just perhaps, by 2016 you will have narrowed your definition of "natural born citizen" to include only those candidates who have at least one brother and one father who previously served as president. Maybe sometime way back when somebody wrote something in some other language that says something like that.
I remember him! Yes, you’re right! ;-)
Thank you for pinging.
It’s crystal clear, simple, and even a high school dropout can understand it. Makes total sense, is logical, and supported by precedent and law.
.
It’s also clear the other guys are driven by malignant agenda.
“None so blind as he who does not want to see.”
No Jeff. We reasoned with you. We showed you evidence. We asked you questions. We patiently took apart your misconceptions and goofy ideas. We GOT deep into the details. Do you know what happened?
You ignored anything and everything and kept repeating the same lying mantra over and over and over and over again until we were all finally fed up with you and so decided the only thing which could be done with you is to treat you like the psychotic figure of ridicule you so richly deserve to be.
DiogenesLamp is currently the main defender of the birther BS. I have a list of several dozen bogus claims made by him and a few of the other birthers.
No Jeff. You have a list of several dozen instances where you didn't agree, but assert that because of your role as MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE that they are wrong.
Jeff's delusion depicted below.
No Jeff, they are not Wrong, you just disagree with them because YOU are wrong. The 14th amendment is a prime example of this. You are so wrong in your understanding that it is painful to listen to you. It makes me feel dumber for having waded through that utter crap you try to pass off as reality.
I find it painful to see you deliberately chop of Robert Bingham's words where he explicitly TELLS US that the 14th amendment is not intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreign parents.
The lies and deceit in you are so strong, that I can only conclude that they have metastasized from deliberate deception to the point of touching your sanity. I begin to believe you can't tell the difference anymore. You have become the victim of your own propaganda.
If the BS continues I will probably eventually get around to writing up all of the BS arguments and exactly WHY they are BS.
Yes, if we keep disagreeing with Jeff, Jeff is going to write up a bunch of arguments PROVING we are wrong because Jeff disagrees with us.
You simply have no idea how pretentious and psychotic you sound by asserting the notion that YOU can disprove anything by continuing to repeat your same lies and distortions.
His pattern is to make a bunch of fallacious claims and then keep repeating them.
Yes Jeff, tell us why we passed the 14th amendment again. Tell us how it says exactly the same thing as existing law, but we needed to pass it anyways. Tell us how NOTHING CHANGED, but we needed to ratify a constitutional amendment so that NOTHING WOULD CHANGE.
Tell us how George Washington is a "natural born citizen" of the United States Government, 44 years into his future!
Tell us again how RAWLE beats John Marshall and Bushrod Washington as an expert in the meaning of "natural born citizen"!
Keep repeating your crap Jeff, and then accuse everyone else of repeating crap!
There was an incident in which he falsely accused me of deliberately hiding stuff because I didn't include all of a John Bingham quote that had all the wording he liked.
No Jeff. I didn't object because you "didn't include all of a John Bingham quote that had all the wording he liked." I objected because you quoted it in such a way as to COMPLETELY REVERSE IT'S MEANING. You quoted him not to CLARIFY, but to produce a FALSE UNDERSTANDING of John Bingham's words.
You knew full well that John Bingham EXPLICITLY excluded children born to parents with foreign allegiance, but you cut off the part you quoted EXACTLY SO AS TO LEAVE OUT THAT PART. Then you asserted John Bingham AGREED WITH YOU!
This is the SAME F***ING TACTIC you use on ALL of your "authorities"! You simply disregard, cut out, or deliberately misconstrue their meaning beyond their words to support YOUR CLAIMS. You do so dishonestly, repeatedly, and without the slightest bit of shame, except when you get CAUGHT AT IT, and then claim it was just an "honest mistake".
I'm not dealing with the rest of your message. Rawle's personal history does not address the point that HIS interpretation directly contradicts that of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, and that of Associate Justice Bushrod Washington who explicitly used Vattel's definition for citizenship and further stated that it was the BEST DEFINITION which has come to his hand.
John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: The Venus - 12 U.S. 253 (1814)
"The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."
My two Supreme Court Justices beat your Bloody English trained lawyer who had lunch with Washington and Franklin.
Jeepers. Finally!
Given your flawed judgement, I have absolutely no doubt of that. Only a person like you can support non American parents having "natural born citizens" while at the same time opposing "anchor babies."
Seriously, 1rudeboy, Jeff argues STRENUOUSLY that a parent's nationality is irrelevant, but he OPPOSES citizenship for "anchor babies."
Cognitive Dissonance, thy name is "Jeff."
Listen, I’m at comment #659+, and you’re at #572. I’ll wait for you to catch up.
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.