Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.
"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“So, Congress can amend the constitution by redefining “natural born citizen”?”
Again, they wrote the words in the Constitution then wrote what they meant in the 1790 immigration law. Your claim to what they meant means nothing.
“I did LOL when I saw the demand for a showing of the codified book of natural law.”
Good because it is laughable that you and other claim what it says but can’t show it. Your assertions about what it says is laughable.
Yes, parts of the Bible might also be considered representative of "natural law." What you asked for, a "codified book of natural law", is an oxymoron. If the artifact depends on a legal code, a law, a regulation, etc., then it is not natural law.
The so-called "Golden Rule" is natural law.
What Congress giveth, Cogress can taketh away. You imply that youself, Congress gets to define NBC. Congress can make that anything they want to.
Which concept is used in our earliest law as ALSO including bloodline...descent. The law SAYS IT. It says this citizenship by descent is a RIGHT for those born to an American citizen parent.
"the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: "
So, having your Dad assigned overseas serving his country doesn't prevent you from being president if you happen to get born over there. His citizenship descends to you by RIGHT at BIRTH. Therefore, you are BORN a citizen. And you are not requiring naturalization, so you are already NATURAL.
That, is the dilemma...what did they mean?
There is no question that a child born of two citizen parents and on the soil is Natural Born, other configurations cause doubt and questionable allegiance.
That's it in a nut shell, it's my opinion and what I believe the Founders intended.
You have shown no evidence to the contrary, ergo your opinion is as good as mine.
Notice there is a discussion here without calling names?
However, that is not really the point. The point is those who claim “natural born citizen” is defined by “natural law.”
We are asking for the page number to see if they are correct in their interpretation of the passage.
I think I made exactly the point, what you seek does not exist. There is no code book of natural law. There may be treatises and similar that expound on natural law, but those writings are not binding law, anywhere.
That your opponent in argument can't produce what you demand is a slam dunk given.
And since it’s a slam dunk given, their definition derived, so they say,from “natural law” is open to question and to be assumed spurious.
What do you mean?
Our Country is founded on the principle that our rights come from God and natural law.
Am I misinterpreting what you wrote?
the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain
The underlined almost line by line in concord with the logic and intent of the naturalization laws of 1790 and 1795.
I find "assumed spurious" to be a most uncharitable characterization.
You and I have had a pretty good relationship, and further discussion on this subject will only cause more damage.
Yes, that was my focus.
Since we as a Country speak English it is only common sense we would use the definitions of the time to discern what the Founders meant.
I was responding to CodeToads remark that Vatell's translation of native, vs citizen.
Yes. But those principles aren't codified. You can't go into a courtroom and enforce rights based on natural law. The closest thing to that is common law, judge made law, and in that arena some of the decisions run astray of sound natural law.
All I was saying was that there is no "US Code of Natural Law." There is a US Code, and some of it tracks natural law (thou shalt not murder, for example).
There is a substantial volume of citizenship statute too, all around the world.
I take the Constitution to be the ‘Law of the Land’ as a final construction on/of all laws. The Constitution in Article II specifically and explicitly notes ‘natural born citizen’ as eligibility for POTUSA. Those three words are there and I see no reason to say such words do not exist.
Are you really thinking that a Monarchy taking control of it's people and declaring them subjects (property) is the same thing as FREE peoples being born with no loyalty other then the country they were born in?
WTF, wasn't that what the Revolution was fought for??????
Here is an interesting piece from Jefferson writing about the commonwealth (Virginia, I assume) in 1779:
and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth,
Interesting look at Jefferson's thinking on the subject about a decade before the Constitution.
I'd love to disagree but in many ways cannot.
I do believe that the DOI, is codified, IN BLOOD, but yes, the courts have eroded that.
We are going to support Ted Cruz to the hilt here on FR if he runs. Those who wish to work us against us and or troll us on this will probably find themselves sitting it out for the duration. FR will not be an anti-Cruz site.
Go, Ted, GO!!
Ahhhhh, so now I'm emotional and basing my opinion on whims. Good to know. Thanks for your insight and intellectual analysis of me and my opinions.
BTW, I fought to preserve both yours and my right to express our opinions.. You are free to disagree (which you clearly do), just as I am free to express mine, based on whatever reference I choose.
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.