CRUZ releases birth certificate

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.

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

I love the venom. Looks nice on you. Kind of like a fashion accessory.

I'm sure you missed my comments on post #13, in post #102.

I also love the way birthers appeal to Bingham, who was neither a legal expert writing a carefully thought-out book, nor a judge deciding a case, nor a member of the Founding Generation, but a Congressman speaking on the floor of the House 75 years after the Constitution was written.

While ignoring, of course, all the good evidence we have from the EARLY United States.

And also while ignoring that Bingham and the other Congressmen in the exact same Congress literally threw away the wording birthers rely so heavily on a few months later, and substituted quite different wording.

Hmmm. I wonder why they did they. Could it be that they found that the wording they were using gave a wrong impression?

Oh. And also while ignoring that Bingham sat in the House chamber silently and without objection while James Falconer Wilson quoted William Rawle's exact quote that completely, absolutely contradicts the bogus birther claim that natural born citizenship took "birth on US soil plus citizen parents."

1) James Buchanan

Born to naturalized father. Father's previous citizenship abjured.

Chester Alan Arthur

Hid the fact from everybody. What they didn't know they couldn't object to.

Barack Obama

Partus Sequitur Patrem. Alien in Spirit if not in the law. Exactly the sort of man the founders created article II to prevent.

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...

Madison was opining on natural law, not English law. (And on Behalf of William Smith, so this is him making a pleading, not writing a treatise on philosophy.) You don't get to change the rules back and forth Jeff. You don't get to change the rules to Natural law when it suits you and then change them back to English Law when THAT suits you. Under English law, you have sole allegiance to the King.

But let us take this opportunity to make the argument more clear. If your primary allegiance lies with the Community, then what of the allegiance to the Family? Is that not superior to that of the "community" at large? Is not your primary allegiance to your father?

Figure it out dumba$$.

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

Jeff always ignores those children of British Loyalists. He simply cannot grasp that there were a whole LOT of people born in America who were not Americans.

By the way, didn't you post a comment from Tucker's Blackstone which said something along the lines of every monarchical based law was expunged? (or words to that effect.)

I've lost track of that quote. I have so many bookmarks that I can't figure out which one it is.

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.

Not so bizarre as you may think. Many thousands of men thought these pieces of paper would protect them from the British claims on their allegiance and servitude.

How did that work out?

Under the pretext of impressing British seamen, our fellow citizens are seized in British ports, on the high seas, and in every other quarter to which the British power extends, are taken on board British men of war and compelled to serve there as British subjects. In this mode our citizens are wantonly snatched from their country and their families, deprived of their liberty and doomed to an ignominious and slavish bondage, compelled to fight the battles of a foreign country and often to perish in them. Our flag has given them no protection; it has been unceasingly violated and our vessels exposed to danger by the loss of the men taken from them. Your committee need not remark that while the practice is continued, it is impossible for the U.S. to consider themselves an independent nation. Every new case is a new proof of their degradation. Its continuance is the more unjustifiable because the U. States have repeatedly proposed to the British government an arrangement which would secure to it the control its own people. An exemption of the citizens of the U.S. from this degrading oppression and their flag from violation, is all that they fought.

I've lost track of that quote. I have so many bookmarks that I can't figure out which one it is.

LOL! Welcome to my world. I've got so many my notes are getting notes.

-----

I think what you're talking about is this one where Tucker repeats the words of the Founders concerning the application of English common law in America;

But some late incidents having given rise to an opinion, that the common law of England, is not only the law of the American States, respectively, according to the mode in which they may, severally have adopted it, but that it is likewise the law of the federal government, a much wider field for investigation is thereby opened; of the importance of which, the general assembly of Virginia, at their session in the winter of 1799, have thus expressed their sentiments, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents.

"It is distressing to reflect, that it ever should have been made a question, whether the constitution of the United States on the whole face, of which, is seen so much labour to enumerate and define the several objects of federal power, could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect manner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law; a law filling so many ample volumes; a law overspreading the entire field of legislation; a law that would sap the foundation of the constitution, as a system of limited, and specified powers."
St. George Tucker Blackstone's Commentaries

-------

If it's not, well....I'm lost. :-)

You have illustrated the wrong document. This document is for a freed slave. All freed slaves were required to produce such documents on demand to prove that they were not chattel slaves. I think it coincident that he was also a seaman. He would never had been thought to be a British subject liable for impressment unless he had actually appeared on the muster roll of one of His Majesties ships. British officers actually acted with some care when impressing seamen as they could be held criminally liable for impressing someone not eligible. The sailors that they impressed from American vessels were usually British born and the Naval officers were acting properly under British law. President Jefferson held that they had no such right. Your certificate was signed in 1807, the same year as the Chesapeake-Leopard affair when a British warship fired on an American warship and impressed four seamen who had deserted from the Royal Navy. One was British born and three were American born, 2 of whom were African American former slaves. The Royal Navy hanged the British born sailor in Halifax. They released the 3 American born sailors, apologized, and paid reparations. The three Americans had voluntarily enlisted into the Royal Navy.

You are quite right about the impressment of American seamen by the Royal Navy, one of the proximate causes of the War of 1812. American seamen were recognized as British born primarily by their accents, but also by identification by Officers or foremast jacks who had served with them in the Royal Navy. While the United States recognized naturalization as a means of citizenship, Britain did not. They held that those born British Subjects remained such. British seamen, especially members of the Royal Navy frequently deserted when they touched at an American port and became naturalized citizens. Many later became American seamen and even joined the United States Navy as their skills were highly prized and service aboard American men of war paid well and was considered a far superior life style to the life of a British sailor.

Sailors did carry these certificates to establish their nationality, but it did them little good until we fought a war over it. Interesting stuff, but nothing whatever to do with birth certificates and eligibility for elected office. Thanks for sharing.

Amazing. just to share.....My Great Grandmother came here with her American born husband in the early 1900’s from Quebec and was threatened with deportation during WWII... I didn’t know we were at war with Canada???? That is the reality. She was an old lady at that time. My Grandmother and her siblings were freaking out if she was to be deported. My Great Grandmother was half blind and not a threat to anyone. Her husband had passed away from the influenza epidemic many years before.... (WWI). Her ancestors emigrated to Canada from France in the late 1600 to early 1700’s. Pretty much on this continent prior to the founding of this country.

You have illustrated the wrong document. This document is for a freed slave.

Well spotted, but beside the point. I searched for "seaman protection papers" and that was the best I could do. In fact, there were many thousands of them created, and they were used to convince the British that the person being interviewed was an American citizen.

The point remains. Papers to prove you are a citizen did not begin in 1915. They were at least a century earlier.

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

I had also thought to use the case of James McClure who presented his proof of being born in Charleston South Carolina to John Armstrong, (Ambassador to France), but John Armstrong (an actual Constitutional Delegate) refused to accept them as proof he was a citizen.

British officers actually acted with some care when impressing seamen as they could be held criminally liable for impressing someone not eligible.

Many months ago when I was researching this in more detail, I believe I read that many natural born American citizens were also detained and impressed. Thousands, in fact. The British simply asserted the rule "Born to a British Father makes you British."

Interesting stuff, but nothing whatever to do with birth certificates and eligibility for elected office.

Evidence that paper proof of citizenship was asserted and understood during the 1790s.

But some late incidents having given rise to an opinion, that the common law of England, is not only the law of the American States, respectively, according to the mode in which they may, severally have adopted it, but that it is likewise the law of the federal government, a much wider field for investigation is thereby opened; of the importance of which, the general assembly of Virginia, at their session in the winter of 1799, have thus expressed their sentiments, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents.
"It is distressing to reflect, that it ever should have been made a question, whether the constitution of the United States on the whole face, of which, is seen so much labour to enumerate and define the several objects of federal power, could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect manner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law; a law filling so many ample volumes; a law overspreading the entire field of legislation; a law that would sap the foundation of the constitution, as a system of limited, and specified powers."
St. George Tucker Blackstone's Commentaries

If it's not, well....I'm lost. :-)

I think that's it. A pretty explicit statement that we didn't wholesale adopt the common law as a matter of Federal Jurisdiction.

You have illustrated the wrong document. This document is for a freed slave.

After further reflection I wish to thank you for pointing this out. I have repeatedly attempted to inform Jeff that Freed Slaves became citizens, and were then able to pass on that citizenship to their children. I note on the document that it explicitly identifies Samuel Bedley as an AMERICAN CITIZEN.

So not only is this an example of a "Seaman Protection paper" it is further proof that I am correct about freed slaves being citizens.

This arrow will go in my quiver.

You may be right, but I wouldn’t use a pre printed form to try to prove your case. He may have been a citizen in the same sense as women were citizens, he could own property, including slaves, and could pass that property onto his children; but he probably couldn’t vote depending upon the state where he lived. The rules and laws surrounding manumission were varied by both place and time, so its not advisable to make too many generalizations.

A very interesting account in the form of a diary of a freed black man named William Johnson of Natchez, Mississippi can be found here:

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/identity/text4/williamjohnsondiary.pdf

As the abolitionist movement gained momentum, the life of freed slaves actually became more difficult, especially in the South.

The man’s name was Samuel Redley.

Just a few points of clarification to your comments. The discussion was about birth certificates, not seaman protection papers or manumission certificates. These were not birth certificates per se and were only held by a small fraction of the population. Birth certificates did not come into general usage until after 1900.

Mr. Madison’s comments were made after he became President in 1809 and were, in part, in response to the failure of seamen protection papers to prevent impressment of American sailors and of the aftermath of the Chesapeake-Leopard affairs which was an armed assault on American sovereignty. Commodore Barron of the Chesapeake was tried by Court Martial for his failure to defend his ship. The United States refused to accept the British demand that a sailor found without such papers could be legally pressed, we argued that their presence on an American vessel was sufficient to assert their status as Americans. In other words, they didn’t need no Stinkin’ Papers.

The numbers of Americans caught up in the press is not known, but certainly at least 1000. They fall into several categories:

1. Americans who had freely joined the Royal Navy (usually after a voyage to England), subsequently deserted and were really being returned to their enrolled condition rather than impressed.

2. British subjects who had immigrated to America and become naturalized citizens, a status not recognized by Britain.

3. American citizens born on U.S. soil. There were not too many of these as the laws of impressment did not permit it, but it did occur either in cases of mistaken identity or through arrogance of the Royal Navy officers involved.

“That is a fact. It is an irreversible fact. The Founders used natural born citizen to describe a born overseas citizen.”

No, that is a fictitious misrepresentation of the actual quotation in the 1790 Act of Congress. Congress actually wrote the Act to say the person born abroad was to be considered as a natural born citizen for the purposes of that very naturalization legislation. The legislative act did not say the persons were actual natural born citizens. The legislative act only said the persons were to be regarded for purposes of determining naturalization as if they possessed the same rights regarding naturalization and lack of need therefor as if they were natural born citizens who require no naturalization procedure. After Congress realized the natural born citizen wording produced undesirable results, Congress changed the wording to citizen in place of natural born citizens, and Congress took extensive efforts in additional provisions to limit additional avenues for foreign influence to abuse the naturalization procedures. This example serves to reinforce the definition of natural born citizen as excluding persons born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign.

I am discussing how the expression “natural born citizen” is used by that Congress and Washington. They use it to describe one born overseas to US citizen parents.

Let’s say that you are told you must consider a certain person to have passed a cred check for a loan. You are the loan official, and this person applies for a loan. Someone asks: “Has he passed a credit check for a loan?” What is your response? Since you are to consider him as having passed, you are to say, “Yes, he has passed.”

Now, let’s say you are told to consider someone under the law as a natural born citizen. You are told that to run for the presidency, a person has to be a natural born citizen. You are asked the question: “Is he a natural born citizen for purposes of the presidential run?” What is your answer?

Well, since you’ve been told by law to consider him a natural born citizen, your answer would be, “Yes, he is a natural born citizen under the law.”

“It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’ It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country.”

- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1833)

The above quote was part of Bayard’s discussion of qualifications to be President and Presidential eligibility.

Jeff, what you posted would work for John McCaine. He is a citizen by birth, born outside the country to citizens, plural, mother and father which is what this says is required to be a natural born citizen.

Obama and Cruz both fail. Both only have one citizen parent. BVB

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.