CRUZ releases birth certificate

Dallas Morning News ^ | 8-18-13 | Todd Gillman

[praytell]

WASHINGTON — Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born.

Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say.

That means he could assert the right to vote in Canada or even run for Parliament. On a lunch break from the U.S. Senate, he could head to the nearby embassy — the one flying a bright red maple leaf flag — pull out his Calgary, Alberta, birth certificate and obtain a passport.

[DiogenesLamp]

but I repeat myself

That is all you do, and you don't get any more right having done so.

George Washington was born owing allegiance to King George III of England.

He was NOT a "natural born citizen" of a NATION which didn't exist at the time. He might be regarded as a "natural born citizen" of Virginia, but his NATIONAL citizenship was owed to England, then to the USA.

Federal citizenship (the One dealing with whether you are an Alien or not) is a superior level of Allegiance over and above State citizenship, or did you not get the memo?

Now what government did that little old Constitution presume to charter? Which one was it again Jeff?

[DiogenesLamp]

On this I agree.

[MamaTexan]

I can read, Jeff.

You needn't FReepamail me just because you got a tingle up you leg when Jim Rob posted to you.

In fact, DO believe I have made the previous request that you DO NOT FReepmail me at all.

If you have something to say to me, say it out in public on the board.

[Nero Germanicus]

Cruz disputes claim of dual citizenship with Canada, releases birth certificate

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’ office is rejecting claims that the Republican lawmaker — and possible 2016 presidential candidate — is a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen, and for the first time has released the senator’s birth certificate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/19/cruz-disputes-claim-dual-citizenship-with-canada-releases-birth-certificate/#ixzz2cSubz1YK

[DiogenesLamp]

and not one single significant authority of history or law,

And you can take it to the bank that this oaf will use this fallacy (and Lie) in every conversation on this topic.

He simply keeps repeating this lie in the hopes of convincing someone who hasn't seen the contrary proof.

like Ramsay who was voted down 36 to 1

And he will always mischaracterize this point as well.

And what's really pathetic, is the first person he can find that supports his stupid theory is Rawle. Poor lonesome Rawle out there all by himself.

Actual Delegates contradict him. Delegates like James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, John Armstrong, William Lewis and so on.

Quoted Bayard much Lately? I figured after you got b*tchslapped by T.F. Bayard you would have given that up.

" I B*tchslapped Jeff Winston."

[Jeff Winston]

I hope you realize that the Thirteen Colonies became thirteen independent STATES.

I hope you understand the meaning of the word "STATE" in 1776.

I hope you also understand that those independent States joined together to form a greater, united nation.

George Washington was born owing allegiance to the Colony of Virginia, and a SECONDARY allegiance to the King of England. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, tells us this quite clearly, and he's right.

In the great Divorce that was the American Revolution, the Colony of Virginia left the King, and the secondary allegiance of her citizens to the English Crown was dissolved. They stayed in the exact same relationship they had held from birth as members of the Colony of Virginia, only now she was a State, not a Colony, and they were citizens and not subjects.

And when Virginia became a member of the United States, all the natural born citizens of Virginia thereby became natural born citizens of the greater nation that was formed.

All this is pretty straightforward, and it's an accurate representation of the way historians and legal scholars understand the law, and of the way Founders such as James Madison understood it.

By the way, I hope you didn't miss post #72.

The gods have been kind thus far to birthers spouting Constitutional nonsense. But I think most FReepers now clearly recognize that it is, in fact, Constitutional nonsense. And it is Constitutional nonsense which, if entertained indefinitely, could irreparably harm conservatism and our nation.

If Ted Cruz runs and emerges as the best conservative candidate, it looks to me like the tolerance for your BS is likely to drop quite dramatically.

[Jeff Winston]

In fact, DO believe I have made the previous request that you DO NOT FReepmail me at all.

My apologies. I assume you did make that request, in any even I have forgotten if you have or that you did. I will try to avoid it.

You needn't FReepamail me just because you got a tingle up you leg when Jim Rob posted to you.

Jim didn't post that to me. He posted it to a birther.

[MamaTexan]

George Washington was born owing allegiance to the Colony of Virginia, and a SECONDARY allegiance to the King of England.

LOL! The Colony of Virginia was in the domain of the King, it's why it was called an 'English Colony'.

-----

And when Virginia became a member of the United States, all the natural born citizens of Virginia thereby became natural born citizens of the greater nation that was formed.

Unless they decided not to.

Aliens by election may then be shortly described to be those subjects of the crown of Great-Britain on the fourth day of July, 1776, who have elected to remain such, and have not since become, and continued to be, citizens of the United States, or some one of them.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries

[DiogenesLamp]

And in case you missed it, here's the detail.

[Jeff Winston]

As you know, there’s no real conflict between what Thomas Bayard said and what his father said.

Of course you will continue to falsely characterize it, just as you falsely characterize everything regarding this topic.

You really should get some psychological help. I am serious. Something is wrong with you.

[DiogenesLamp]

George Washington was born owing allegiance to the Colony of Virginia, and a SECONDARY allegiance to the King of England. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, tells us this quite clearly, and he's right.

You go on and on an on about this English Law sh*t, and now you come up with this utter contradiction of it? I guess you simply change your mind whenever it suits you. Under the English law, there is no question that primary allegiance is owed to the King. Virginia was his land too. (at the time.)

The Entire State of Virginia was no Different under English Law than was Wales, Scotland, or Ireland. There was no secondary allegiance. All allegiance was to King George III.

And when Virginia became a member of the United States, all the natural born citizens of Virginia thereby became natural born citizens of the greater nation that was formed.

The nation didn't EXIST when he was born. You aren't grasping the fact that you CANNOT have born allegiance to a country which doesn't exist when you are born.

You really have to stretch your nonsense in these pathetic attempts to cover it's nakedness.

By the way, I hope you didn't miss post #72.

No, I didn't miss it. I agree with it. I just don't feel the need to run after a pat on the head like one certain little boy who craves recognition.

If Ted Cruz runs and emerges as the best conservative candidate, it looks to me like the tolerance for your BS is likely to drop quite dramatically.

You can shove your veiled threats back into your brain orifice, you little spastic dweeb.

I shall not be the least surprised to see Liberals (and their Media dogs) do a 180 on Ted Cruz if he secures the nomination.

[DiogenesLamp]

As you know, there’s no real conflict between what Thomas Bayard said and what his father said.

You are absolutely right. Both of them completely agree with each other, and completely disagree with you.

Of course you will continue to falsely characterize it, just as you falsely characterize everything regarding this topic.

He says being BORN HERE doesn't make you a citizen. Jeff says it ALWAYS makes you a citizen. Jeff is wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas Bayard agrees with what we birthers have been saying all along. Not Jeff.

[Jeff Winston]

Unless they decided not to.

Indeed. Unless the elected not to. You are correct in so saying.

Just as in a divorce with teenage children, those who had previously been members of the Colonies had the choice of continuing to live with their mother, or of going off to live with their father.

Only in this divorce, generally speaking, the two parents lived a vast distance apart, and there was to be no joint custody, no summers with the dad (who was always a distant figure anyway), nothing except the permanent choice, unless one wanted to go someday and naturalize, to remain American... or to remain "English."

The vast majority stuck with their primary allegiance, and remained American.

[centurion316]

Birth Certificates are an invention of the 20th Century. Prior to that, births were “registered” in a registry book either in the local church or in a government office. In England, this registration was done by the government beginning in 1837, prior to that local parishes maintained their own birth registries. Government registration of births in the U.S. was not common practice until after 1900. Many churches maintained birth registries, but it was not mandatory and varied by denomination. The Family Bible was the usual form of recording births in this country.

So, a birth certificate would have been unknown to the framers of the Constitution. You were either a natural born citizen or you were not and they would have thought it bizarre that someone would have to produce a piece of paper to establish that fact. Your family and your neighbors would know the truth of it and you could never hope to gain the support of Presidential electors unless the responsible citizens of your state attested to your Constitutional eligibility. If you were born abroad of an American parent, that fact would be well known.

Naturalized citizens, on the other hand, were required to sign a loyalty oath as a condition of citizenship and that document served as proof of your naturalization. Such documents were required to be recorded at the Courthouse. The only time that a birth was recorded at the Courthouse was when a birth became a cause for examination by the Bastardy Court held to determine parentage.

I find it comical that people are using a 20th Century construct to argue over the original Constitutional intent of the Natural Citizen Clause. Natural Born Citizens don’t need No Stinkin’ Documents, at least in the minds of the founding fathers.

Since the framers did not choose to define the term within the Constitution itself, only the Supreme Court can interpret its meaning as it specifically applies to Presidential eligibility, something they have yet to do. I doubt they ever will.

[combat_boots]

My dad didn’t have one for a long time. The court house burned down.

[MHGinTN]

Post #13 on this very thread exposes your lie. You are a filthy twister.

[Nero Germanicus]

U.S. Presidents who held dual-citizenship at birth:
1) James Buchanan- His father (James Buchanan) was a citizen of Ireland who immigrated to the United States and was naturalized. Ireland at the time was part of the British Empire. Under the force of “nemo potest exuere patriam” the senior Buchanan remained a British subject his entire life under British law and bestowed that status to his son at his son’s birth. President Buchanan would have been a British subject his entire life under British law.

2) Chester Alan Arthur. Arthur, like Buchanan, was the son of an Irish immigrant (William Arthur). Like James Buchanan’s father, Arthur’s was also naturalized. As was the case with Buchanan, Arthur was also a British subject under British law. Unlike Buchanan, Arthur’s British nationality was rescinded with the passage of the Naturalization Act, 33 &34 Vict. c. 14 in 1870 (at age 41).

3) Barack Obama-When Barack Obama II was born, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

At the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom.

Additionally, Presidents Washington and Madison were honorary citizens of the French Republic, as was Tom Paine, who was elected to the French National Convention. The French Revolutionary Assembly conferred honorary citizenship on Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Madison in 1793.

[Jeff Winston]

There was no secondary allegiance. All allegiance was to King George III.

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, says you're full of crap.

I think there is a distinction... between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign [i.e., the KING] established by that society...

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 [that is, the KING]. 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.

BZZZZT! You lose again.

[centurion316]

When my father was born in 1915, my family had been in this country for over 300 years. He was the very first to have a birth certificate.

[bluecat6]

On the shoulders of Leo Donofrio.