Canadian-born Ted Cruz says “facts are clear” he’s eligible to be president

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ^ | 07/21/2013

[Red Steel]

Except Cruz did not do that. The title of the article is wrong and misleading. All that Cruz said was that he was a citizen. The ‘Journ-O-list’ who wrote the blog article for the Dallas News is an OBot.

[Jeff Winston]

Your problem is, and I refer to your #621 in particular, you provide the who, what, and where (sometimes), but never the why or how.

I think his goal is to dominate the threads with his bullsh*t.

You debunk claim A, he ignores that it's been debunked and proceeds to claim B.

You debunk claim B, he ignores that it's been debunked and proceeds to claim C.

So on for maybe a couple dozen different claims.

So then some time goes by, another thread pops up, and he reposts claim A. And you start all over again.

Only rarely does he come up with anything new.

The claim in 621 that Rawle's slavery case was ruled against unanimously seems to be a new one. I hadn't seen it before. I actually looked for some evidence for it and found nothing.

Birthers often make flat assertions: "It takes two citizen parents plus birth on US soil to be a natural born citizen. Always did." "Rawle was a liar." Often they do so without evidence. Sometimes they take some existing evidence and misrepresent or twist it. Sometimes they take some minor authority and ignore every major authority to make their claim. Sometimes they just ignore the evidence and keep making the claim, as DL does when he says that Roberts' book represented the Supreme Court of PA.

If a minor authority agrees with their BS, then he's God. If a dozen major authorities disagree, then it's "a wall of text," "just lawyers."

If DL has any evidence that Rawle's slavery case was ruled against unanimously, I'd like to see it.

The idea of course is to try and discredit one of our most esteemed early legal scholars. He has to do this because Rawle says, in absolutely clear and unambiguous language, that DL's claims are total bullsh*t.

So let's try and discredit Rawle because he lost a case on the constitutionality of slavery. Meanwhile, never mind that David Ramsay, who wasn't even a lawyer, lost HIS case ON WHAT CITIZENSHIP ENTAILED, a massive 36 to 1, and the Father of the Constitution led the charge. THAT doesn't matter, THAT's totally irrelevant, because DL thinks he can use THAT to promote his BS.

[Jeff Winston]

“Rawle Missed the Vattel lessons.”

Yeah, in the 7 months or so (not sure of the exact time frame, speaking from memory here but it was short) that Rawle was studying in England.

Amazing. There was a brief period of time in which Vattel took America by storm, and then was never spoken of again, except for years later, when the guys at the Constitutional Convention got together and suddenly remembered that Vattel was God.

And Rawle was so unlucky to have missed it.

I am wondering whether that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I've heard so many superbly stupid claims, it's difficult to keep track.

[Jeff Winston]

And yes, American lawyers were immersed first and foremost in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.

Vattel was listened to in regard to international law. He was popular in that arena.

There’s not the slightest hint the Founders paid any attention at all to his ideas on citizenship, just as they totally ignored his idea that only the elites should be allowed to keep and bear arms.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'd seen that one before, too, but your re-post allowed me to save it to my research files, so thank you!

You're very welcome. I actually went so far as to read through the Report of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and cross check it with the English laws it specified were still in effect. If I recall correctly (I did this months ago) there were two English laws regarding subjects/citizens cited. One of them deals with children born over seas, and the other deals with inheritance, I think. I did NOT find a reference to the English law which declared that anyone born in the King's lands was an "natural born subject." It wasn't there.

While i'm at it, i've had this thing floating around in my saved links for awhile, and I finally decided to track it down more accurately. Apparently, according to this English Law Authority, Children born in England to Aliens were not regarded as "natural born subjects", but were regarded as "Denizens"; a different class of citizen of lesser rank than a subject.

What this tends to indicate is that the "English Common Law" which Jeff is so fond of citing is not understood to have the exact same meaning by differing English law Authorities", and it begs for this question.

If the English Law authorities are not even in Agreement that birth on the soil equals "natural born subject", then how can the "Common Law of England" be regarded as the rock solid basis upon which we wish to base our citizenship requirements?

.

As for the rest of your post:
March 6, 1790 ……and John Sockman, first taking and subscribing the oath of allegiance to this commonwealth before two Justices of the peace shall be deemed adjuded and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born citizens.

Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts Top of page 510

This is the only reason they, and they alone are eligible for the president/Vice Presidents Offices despite not being 'natural-born' citizens.

I'm going to have to look at what you are saying more closely, but if i'm getting the gist of it, it seems that a specific phrase in "naturalization act of 1790 is rather convenient, no?

[Red Steel]

H3ll, we've got so much evidence I can't even keep track of it all!

Here is one that has not been posted in a long time.
From Benjamin Franklin's memoirs

There is a poster around here who would always spout that Emmerich de Vattel was some no-nothing Swiss philosopher, which implied that he had nothing to do with the ideas that helped form this country. ...As we know, all to the contrary.

[MamaTexan]

C'mon Jeff, show us your superb reasoning skills.

Explain your interpretation of Tucker's words.

You know - how an alien can be born 'outside' of a State while at the same time he was an inhabitant OF it.

[DiogenesLamp]

“Jim, I am wondering how long we here at FreeRepublic have to continue to put up with the abuse of this poster.”

In reply to Jeff, Cold Case Posse Supporter writes: Oh good grief, stop being a crybaby and tattletale!! Be a man!

If I were him, i'd be walking softly around Jim Robinson right about now. Jim Robinson personally sent Jeff a message telling him to cool it. (or similar sentiment)

[MamaTexan]

Children born in England to Aliens were not regarded as "natural born subjects", but were regarded as "Denizens"; a different class of citizen of lesser rank than a subject.

Yes. Tucker said it was a middle state between natural born and naturalized....and denizens were under the jurisdiction of the States.

The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. 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 U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker

-----

but if i'm getting the gist of it, it seems that a specific phrase in "naturalization act of 1790 is rather convenient, no?

Exactly! It was merely a act to entitle specific people to a special type of Naturalization...that's all.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

You have someone constantly assert that the information you have posted are "completely verified fallacies" (By the Authority vested in JEFF) and pretty soon you begin to regard profanity directed at Jeff as the absolute correct response.

You UNILATERALLY proclaim that we are "PROVEN" wrong, (as if Jeff is almighty God or something) and you expect us to respect your claim just because you say so? It is as lunatic as it is arrogant.

The only thing he seems to add here is controversy, and even that is false and manufactured.

Yes, by you. You MAKE CRAP UP, and then point to your MADE UP CRAP as proof that your OTHER MADE UP CRAP demonstrates that we are wrong. It's like this guy I used to know who would say he was correct because the following link proved it. You follow the link and its him writing at his own blog.

You do the same thing, but you don't have a blog.

[4Zoltan]

“And Rawle was so unlucky to have missed it.”

Rawle went to law school in 1782 and he published the “View of the Constitution of the United States” in 1825. In the intervening 43 years he became one of the most prominent lawyers in Pennsylvania.

[Jeff Winston]

You have someone constantly assert that the information you have posted are "completely verified fallacies" (By the Authority vested in JEFF) and pretty soon you begin to regard profanity directed at Jeff as the absolute correct response.

All anyone has to do is go to the original sources, and verify what I've said, in order to see that almost everything you've ever posted is bullsh*t.

[Jeff Winston]

And there’s no end of it. No matter how much bullsh*t I or others debunk, you and your fellows always shovel more.

I don’t understand why you haven’t been shown the door. A long time ago.

[MamaTexan]

Answer the question Jeff-

According to your interprertation of Tucker, an alien can be born outside a State while at the same time he is an inhabitant of it. How can this be?

We're waiting.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

“Jim Robinson personally sent Jeff a message telling him to cool it”

I remember that a few weeks back. Jim was tired of his constant petty insults to fellow freepers!

[Jeff Winston]

According to your interprertation of Tucker, an alien can be born outside a State while at the same time he is an inhabitant of it. How can this be?

I don't even know what you're talking about. The question doesn't even make any sense.

Inhabitants are people who CURRENTLY live in a State.

They include people who were born there and have lived there their entire lives, and also people who have moved in from elsewhere.

The early States were considered independent States, and yet bound together to form an entity called the United States of America.

Here's Tucker's quote:

“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.”

I don't see what's hard to understand about that quote. Aliens have always been people who were born outside of a country (or "State"). If they moved into the country (or "State") then they became inhabitants of that State.

But until and unless they became naturalized citizens or subjects of that State, they were called "aliens." Just as they always had been.

Except that there was a slight difference between "aliens" and "foreigners." The term "alien" was used more often for a "foreigner" who was currently on our soil. If they were still in their own country, they were more often called "foreigners."

See, this is what I mean by a constant stream of bullsh*t. No matter how much bullsh*t you debunk or explain, birthers always have a fresh supply on the truck. And then they come along and DEMAND that you "answer" the latest bullsh*t. And if you get tired of the stupid game and don't answer, then they scream it's because you can't.

Only in almost most instances, you've already answered the bullsh*t 3 or 4 times before already.

Not in this particular case. But in most cases.

[Jeff Winston]

I remember that a few weeks back. Jim was tired of his constant petty insults to fellow freepers!

Look, it's clear that birthers enjoy a protected status here.

They're free to post all manner of BS. Doesn't matter how many times they've been debunked.

And they're free to insult other FReepers.

Even threaten them on occasion.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much I can do about it.

[txhurl]

Then why is Cruz workin’ on Iowa? Sheer boredom?

[Red Steel]

Politicians like to have “options” open. Here, he cut off the talk about eligibility, stating only he was a US citizen.

[Nero Germanicus]

I agree with you that would be effective in motivating conservatives to get out and vote but liberals and left leaning moderates will have long forgotten about Benghazi by 2016.

Did Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and Fast & Furious topple Barry Soetoro?
It’s all in who can motivate their core constituencies to go to the polls.