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 ...
No, aliens are born outside of the allegiance of a country.
Tucker says their are 2 types of INHABTANTS in the State and that natural borns are born inside and aliens are born outside...even though they both are inhabiting the State.
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.”
---
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.
Oh, please. Get off you sanctimonious high horse, you putz.
Should I drag out the links from some of our other run-ins? You know... where you called me liar, told me I should 'stay in the kitchen' or even had the gall to threaten me with the owner of the website ALL because I flatly refused to eat your cr@p sandwich and turn around and say
"Please, Sir, may I have another"?
Texas Senator Ted Cruz might only be in the first year of his first term in U.S. Senate, but he is already igniting the imaginations of Iowa Republicans who view him as strong presidential candidate in 2016 should he choose to run.
Cruz was in Des Moines on Friday to address the Iowa Renewal Project, an annual weekend gathering of Iowa pastors and religious leaders. Cruz also attended a picnic fundraiser for the Republican Party of Iowa, and met with Republican activists and operatives during his first foray into Iowa.
snip
Cruz is scheduled to be back in the state in the next few weeks. He will be a headline speaker at The FAMiLY Leader’s Leadership Summit in Ames.
Doesn’t mean he’s running, but we’ll see though....
We can argue about that, but that's not what the quote says.
Tucker says their are 2 types of INHABTANTS in the State and that natural borns are born inside and aliens are born outside...even though they both are inhabiting the State.
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 says aliens are people who were born outside of the state, but who inhabit it now.
Obviously, at the time they were born, they were not inhabitants of the state.
You can't be an inhabitant of a state you don't live in yet.
I don't know what's so hard about that.
Here is the complete quote from Tucker:
“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. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.”
The very respectable political writer he is referring to was George Nicholas.
He was a member of the Virginia Ratifying Convention and a good friend of James Madison.
What he is saying is that people inhabiting a state are of two types. The first are the natural born (born within the state) or the second, aliens (born outside of the state). The inhabitants of a state are not necessarily born there.
Excellent comment!
ROFLMAO! Trying to transpose the facts are we?
Tucker clearly places the division of the two classes of inhabitants FIRST.
The people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes:
Then, he stipulates that natural borns are born inside and aliens born outside.
-----
Obviously, at the time they were born, they were not inhabitants of the state.
Obviously, they very much WERE, or Tucker would not have referred to them as 'inhabitants' first and aliens BORN second.
NOWHERE does he say anything about people who are NOT inhabitants or who 'have not been born yet'.
Nothing like twisting the facts to fit your fiction, is there?
I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here.
An inhabitant, by definition, is someone who inhabits a place.
It’s someone who LIVES in a particular location.
If a person was born OUTSIDE of a location, he is not and CAN NOT BE, by DEFINITION, an inhabitant of that location UNTIL AND UNLESS HE MOVES THERE.
Let’s use a concrete example.
You were born in New York. Are you an inhabitant of California? No. Not until and unless you move to California and INHABIT California.
As long as you are living in New York, you are an inhabitant of New York.
Once you move to California, you become an inhabitant of California.
I’m not even sure what you’re driving at. But whatever it is, it simply doesn’t make any sense.
The inhabitants of a state are not necessarily born there.
True, they are not, but this quote from Tucker is from notes on his annotation of Blackstone's Commentaries. The original says:
OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
Chapter X , William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England i
Other that the inhabitant remark, Tucker quotes Blackstone almost verbatim.
Whether it is allegiance to a King or Allegiance to a country, the principal is the same.
Without a pre-existing tie, there is no allegiance, and without that allegiance, one cannot be natural born.
We're talking about a quote from Tucker.
----
I’m not even sure what you’re driving at. But whatever it is, it simply doesn’t make any sense.
Well, of course it doesn't to you. It would throw your whole 'if-you-were-born-here-you're-a-citizen' theory right out the window.
But notice that Tucker/Nicholas doesn’t say that there is a third type - those born in the state but who are aliens.
So in the case of an alien moving into a state and have children there.
Which of the two classes of citizen would the children be considered - born in-state or born out-of-state?
It’s plain English.
Tucker is very clear. Those who were born within the State they inhabit were natural born citizens of that State.
Because the only other type of citizen other than natural born, naturalized or alien is a denizen , which is what we call a 'resident alien'.
-----
So in the case of an alien moving into a state and have children there.Which of the two classes of citizen would the children be considered - born in-state or born out-of-state?
As long the parent(s) remain aliens, their children are born outside the State.
-----
I actually thought of a more succinct way to put what I was trying to say-
When Tucker talks of inhabitants, he's talking about the physical State, but when he's talking about the separation of classes, he's talking about the *political* state.
Don't know if it helps. :-)
Well, like any other endangered species, birthers deserve some special protection. As evidenced by post 645, even DiogenesLamp recognizes that the birther gig is now running only on fumes.
Many of these folks are knee deep in Coldwater Posse DVD's, fundraising letters from Alan Keyes, Orly Taitz briefs/sanction orders, Jerome Corsi classics, maps of Africa and empty pizza boxes. Many of them haven't seen or felt the warmth of the sun in years.
But, at long last, it has finally become clear even to the birthers that our Supreme Court consists of justices who are either too stupid to absorb the birther message, too crippled by treasonous impulses to care about our Constitution, or both. Our country is doomed and this party is finally over.
And, so now the birther books and the birther DVD's are as worthless as the empty pizza boxes. Will somebody order a large dumpster?
So, I think we should try to be very patient with the birthers. I suspect that after a short detox and a few years of rehab, they'll be carrying the flag for Ted Cruz in 2016!
These civil privileges, conferred upon aliens, by state authority, are dictated by a just and liberal policy; but they must be taken to be strictly local; and until a foreigner is duly naturalized, according to the act of Congress, he is not entitled in any other state to any other privileges than those which the laws of that state allow to aliens. No other state is bound to admit, nor would the United States admit, any alien to any privileges, to which he is not entitled by treaty, or the laws of nations, or the laws of the United States, or of the state in which he dwells………. The article in the constitution of the United States, declaring that citizens of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, applies only to natural born or duly naturalized citizens, and if they remove from one state to another, they are entitled to the privileges that persons of the same description are entitled to in the state to which the removal is made, and to none other.
James Kent, Commentaries 1826/1827
Lol. I suspect you're right.
They are not, after all, terribly concerned with principle. If they had been, they wouldn't have thrown the truth and the Constitution under the bus in the first place.
In fact, the Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts shows that they used "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" interchangeably.
Even President Washington was not immune to using the term subject.
In a letter to the Catholic clergy in the U.S., President Washington ended with,
"And may the members of your society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity."
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/97/Letter_from_George_Washington_to_the_Roman_Catholics_in_the_U_1.html
It is rather hard sometimes to break a lifetime of habit. LOL!
Thanks (again) for providing a link. This thread is just turning into a treasure-trove of information!
I think we need a poll of Freepers, anonymous of course, asking our opinions on “Natural Born Citizen.
One question should be, “Does Natural Born Citizen mean Citizen at the moment of Birth and nothing else?”
I am confident that the radical, crackpot birther theory would not represent a majority of Freeper opinion.
How in Sam H can we convince the country of anything, when after arguing this nonsense for over 6 years on FR, you birthers have NOT convinced a majority of Freepers?
(And I note that Diogenes Lamp attacked me by name before I even entered this thread discussion!)
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.