No worries, i'm well familiar with your method of dealing with things you don't want to hear.
Posted on 08/13/2013 3:12:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Via Mediaite and MFP, forget the legal niceties about what “natural born” might or should mean and look at this from a court’s perspective. Realistically, no judge is going to disqualify a national figure who stands a real chance of being the nominee of one of the two major parties unless the law leaves them no wiggle room to rule otherwise. Tens of millions of Americans would be willing to vote for Ted Cruz; to strike him from the ballot on a technicality in an ambiguous case would be momentously undemocratic. Against that backdrop, the Supreme Court would almost certainly end up reading “natural born” in the narrowest way, excluding anyone who was born abroad of two non-citizen parents but including everyone else. Cruz, who was born in Canada but whose mother was a U.S. citizen, would qualify, not only for the reason Ace gives here but more broadly because courts don’t want to be seen as hard-ass enforcers of what’s perceived by many to be an unusually archaic bit of the Constitution. They’ll dump a true foreigner because they have to. They don’t have to dump the son of an American citizen like Cruz, so they won’t. Take it to the bank.
But never mind that. Given the angst and ambiguity over the “natural born” clause in the last two cycles, why not pass an amendment to replace it with something like, say, a 25-year residency requirement? The point of the clause was to make sure that rich foreigners couldn’t cross the ocean and buy their way into the presidency, which wasn’t a baseless concern for a group of former British subjects who worried about loyalists to the throne subverting the revolution. In practice, though, it means that someone who’s born on U.S. soil but lives their entire life abroad, only to return and run for president decades later, is constitutionally more trustworthy than someone like Cruz who was born abroad but has lived his entire life here. Does anyone question whether Ted Cruz, decades later, might be more loyal to Canada than to the U.S.? Right at this moment, House Republicans are gearing up to pass a variation of the DREAM Act that would grant citizenship to illegals who were brought here at a young age by their parents on the theory that the place where you’re raised is more likely to shape your patriotic loyalty than the happenstance of your birth. If those kids are trustworthy enough to help decide at the polls who the president should be, why shouldn’t they be eligible for the presidency themselves? In a democracy, the president is, or should be, drawn from the citizenry. People who take certain draconian disqualifying actions, like committing felonies, are an exception, but what action has Cruz taken? Replace “natural born” with a residency requirement, which gives people the power to prove their loyalty, and you solve that problem.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
But, of course, it's just another argument to pitch to the voters and their electors. Perhaps the more they hear and consider, the better will be their choices. ;-)
Hmmmmm...
Did you hear something just then?
Sure lots if very iffy cases pointed to. From your list only Wong Kim Ark is directly germane.
Prior to Suffrage, the mother could not pass on NBC, only the father. Following Suffrage that was changed and the mother can pass on NBC, as in Cruz.
Regrettably, I learned to not listen to much you have to say, as I am confident many others have.
Thank you Diogenes for your several references, US Steel and “From the Athenian Constitution”. My reference to the significance of Vattel, was F.S. Ruddy, “The Importance of Vattel” in the Grotian Society Papers 1972”. Among the comments by Ruddy was “James Wilsons’ Lectures on Jurisprudence, in 1790, which gave “the first American presentation of the principles of the law of nature and of nations” followed Vattel very closely.” “In addition, when Jefferson inaugurated the study of the Law of Nature and of Nations at William and Mary College in 1779, the text from then until 1841 was Vattel’s.”
Ruddy, citing a Professor Dickenson, produced a chart comparing the four most cited legal authorities used by U.S. courts, Grotius, Pufendorf, Bynkershoek, and Vattel. Vattel was cited in Pleadings, Citations, and Quotations abour four times more frequently than any of the others, with Bynkershoek in second place. This was our law, our common-law according to some, and a brilliant work as I believe you well know. (It was illuminating to read in Vattel the notion of judicial review made famous by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, who studied at William and Mary where Vattel was the required textbook).
Some of the old trolls appear to be coming out of hibernation for this thread, and we have some new ones. You appear to be a relative latecomer, clearly not a troll, and bringing fresh scholarship, so please understand that it is an attribute of political propagandists that their object has noting to do with truth or accuracy. They want to obscure an inconvenient truth. Some respondents are simply ignorant and too lazy to read the original sources, but explaining the truth is still worth some time because there are many who are interested, and willing to learn from those who support their arguments adequately.
Because of the GOP’s penchant for naturalized candidates it would not surprise to find that some of the disrupters could be propagandists for the “our” side. They proffered McCain when his ineligibility can be traced through six or seven years of Washington Post/Amazon articles/ LA Times, NY Times, and Chicago Trib.
If conservatives have good reason to believe they are being hornswoggled by their own political party, for reasons we may never know, but most likely have to do with money, the GOP won’t have a prayer against Hillary, who is a natural born citizen. Obama told us he is a naturalized citizen, a natural born subject of the British Commonwealth, if anyone bothered to read his reference, the 1948 British Nationality Act. He told Joe the plumber he believed in redistribution and presumably won the election. Better to know what we are dealing with than trust liars.
Keep supporting the truth.
No single parent can pass on natural born citizenship. It takes two. Trust Barack Obama, who told you he was born “Subject of the British Commonwealth” because his citizenship followed his father's, even with a U.S. citizen Mother. He told you he was naturalized. Only an amendment can change that requirement since Congress has no authority to interpret the Constitution. Also, no amendment can infer or imply a change in an existing provision of the Constitution. Changes must be explicit. The foundation for our naturalization laws is the 14th Amendment in which the term natural born citizen does not appear, and whose author, John Bingham, repeated Vattel’s definition in his House hearings.
Congress cannot amend Natural Law. As Diogenes explained with excellent examples, Greeks had no confusion about which citizens were natural born. Natural born citizenship has thousands of years of practical application. We could perhaps invent a "progressive citizen", with a scale to determine who is accorded the highest status. I'll leave the requirements to your imagination. But suffrage has nothing to do with natural born citizenship.
Interesting. Thanks for the information.
Ted Cruz and I are still ineligible for the presidency due to us both not being natural born citizens.
Your argument above is an example of confirmation bias. You regard the salient aspect of birth to be PLACE of birth, while the argument my side has been making has been Inheritance from Citizen Parents. Was Richard Nixon's Parents American Citizens? Yes. Then the essential condition is met. He was able to inherit his national character from his parents.
Similarly, maybe the term "citizen" in "natural born citizen" was intended to be flexible enough to include new circumstances under which someone can be born a citizen of the United States that might be added in the future.
What is "natural" is not flexible. Natural characteristics must be inherited. Anything else is adoption.
Ann Coulter.. Romney huckster and Chrispie Creme huckster...
Dead to me. Go away.
Show us where NBC is described in the Constitution. Unless the Constitution requires alteration there would no need for an Amendment. Because the Constitution is not specific and we assume relies on English Common Law, means it requires either Congress or the Courts specify, non of which wish to touch with a ten foot pole.
Can’t see the forest for the trees, may be apropos, but at least its a case of being blinded by the trees for many over-opinionated Freepers.
No worries, i'm well familiar with your method of dealing with things you don't want to hear.
However, we both retain the right to express our positions and to try to thereby influence the opinions of other voters and their electors. I encourage you to continue to develop your pitch and to communicate that pitch as effectively as you can.
You can make a difference! ;-)
You may be interested to know that I have some quotes from James Wilson that support the inheritable position on Citizenship.
“Generally speaking,” says the great political authority,b Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights; but his legislative I consider as his characteristick right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union: for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.c In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.
Ruddy, citing a Professor Dickenson, produced a chart comparing the four most cited legal authorities used by U.S. courts, Grotius, Pufendorf, Bynkershoek, and Vattel. Vattel was cited in Pleadings, Citations, and Quotations abour four times more frequently than any of the others, with Bynkershoek in second place. This was our law, our common-law according to some, and a brilliant work as I believe you well know. (It was illuminating to read in Vattel the notion of judicial review made famous by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, who studied at William and Mary where Vattel was the required textbook).
It would be very helpful if you would put links and quotes in the Vattel Research thread. I keep quite a lot of information in the form of links and files, but I find it is often easier to simply put it in the Vattel Research thread for easy reference, and also so I don't have to remember where I put it.
They want to obscure an inconvenient truth.
Exactly correct. I will further add, it is my opinion that this effort to obscure inconvenient truth started in the Early 1800s. If you haven't read my theory about Rawle, you should. Rawle associated closely with people who knew the truth, and clearly enunciated the truth, yet Rawle published a book completely at odds with positions he knew to be very firm with his more authoritative Associates.
I believe that the problem was further exacerbated by British trained lawyers, and various flavors of abolitionists, simply repeating as fact what they wanted to be true. They muddied the waters.
Because of the GOP’s penchant for naturalized candidates it would not surprise to find that some of the disrupters could be propagandists for the “our” side. They proffered McCain when his ineligibility can be traced through six or seven years of Washington Post/Amazon articles/ LA Times, NY Times, and Chicago Trib.
I am certain that many of those arguing for a very liberal interpretation of "natural born citizen" are on "our" side. These people are motivated by political expediency and if the truth does not agree with their needs, so much the worse for the truth.
Most of the people with whom i've had the greatest difficulty are those who's eyes are on poll numbers rather than history. They want to believe in the loose interpretation because it fits the need of their political avarice.
If conservatives have good reason to believe they are being hornswoggled by their own political party, for reasons we may never know, but most likely have to do with money, the GOP won’t have a prayer against Hillary, who is a natural born citizen.
Sultan Knish has made a good attempt at explaining why the elite establishment are at odds with conservatives. I think he has nailed it.
Better to know what we are dealing with than trust liars.
I think we are fighting against liars in our own party as much as we are fighting Democrats.
I also wish to thank you for your efforts. I have read and followed much of what you have written, and I very much appreciate your work. I am only too happy to add my little part to all our efforts to discover and promote an accurate understanding of this issue.
No, there was a schism which developed. Never before in History was a child born to (married) parents of different allegiances. Both England and the US recognized automatic naturalization for a woman married to a citizen/subject.
The dichotomy didn't occur at "suffrage" it occurred with the Cable act of 1922. Suffrage didn't allow the transfer of citizenship, but the Cable act of 1922 did.
It wasn't "Natural" citizenship, it was a bastardized form of citizenship which never existed before. A split citizenship with multiple possible allegiances where before their only existed one.
And they currently favor your position by far.
However, we both retain the right to express our positions and to try to thereby influence the opinions of other voters and their electors. I encourage you to continue to develop your pitch and to communicate that pitch as effectively as you can.
I try, but sometimes I simply can't convey the idea. As Karl Popper said: "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: "
You can make a difference! ;-)
Thank you for the encouragement, but I suspect that on this topic, no real difference can be made. The Herd mentality has pretty much made the current dominate position unassailable in terms of actual changing minds or policy. This is pretty much an academic discussion at this point.
People simply believe what they want to believe, and they are CERTAIN in their beliefs. They do not want to HEAR contrary beliefs. (Note fingers in Ear img posted above.) :)
But once again, thanks for making an effort to see both sides.
Works to keep out BS pollution.
Works on truth too.
Ahh a familiar parry X-purt. Show me where anything is defined “in the Constitution.” You can’t of course because our framers were bright and well-read men who knew, just as we do today when we think about it, how language is constantly changing. If modern definitions are used the meanings our framers intended would have quickly become meaningless and the Constitution irrelevant, which may be your goal. The only term which didn’t quite satisfy the framers, because it was too broad, was “Treason”, which our framers restricted. Every other term was based on “the common-language and law familiar to its framers.”
The Swiss legal philosopher Vattel, used more than any other source both in the Declaration and in the Constitution, our first law book at our first law school, the favorite resource for Hamilton and Washington for guiding decision making (from a comment in one of Hamilton’s letters to Washington while Hamilton was Treasury Secretary), and Vattel was the first and only book on Washington’s desk in his new office in New York. That is what makes common-law, U.S. common-law. The British were an prime example for how not to govern to our founders and framers.
We know the game X-purt, but for any who would like to learn what our framers and justices thought about British Common-law, a legal system built to protect the prerogatives of royalty, read a bit of Justice James Wilson’s Philadelphia lectures or Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, Section II, in which he clearly delineates the difference between a Monarch, always born to one alien, and the U.S. President, who must be a "native", the synonym for natural born citizen. Wilson savaged the pompous British legal historian Blackstone, quoting some of his self-conflicting interpretation. England has the advantage of having no Constitution, though some throw out the Magna Carta. Greeks and Romans both and more mature legal systems than England’s in the middle ages. Monarch has permitted the English to change the law to suit the needs of whichever member of the aristocracy needed a law changed, much as we are see in the U.S. today.
The concept of a "natural-born" citizen comes straight from English law which is why the Founders found no need to redefine it for us.
The concept of "natural born SUBJECT" comes from English law, and it is distinctly incompatible with the characteristics of citizenship.
Natural born Subject is to Natural born Citizen what a King is to a President.
They are two completely different systems of governance, with two distinctly DIFFERENT manners of regarding their individuals.
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.