Posted on 03/13/2014 8:34:40 PM PDT by mandrews222
Are you confused about the claim that Ted Cruz is not a natural-born citizen, with all its attendant disinformation? Well, here is your answer.
We have gathered together the top arguments of those who challenge Senator Cruz’s eligibility to serve as president, along with exhaustive research and links to original sources, and condensed it all into one, bite-sized yet authoritative piece. We have done all the work for you, assembling a definitive reference you can use any time you hear someone say that Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for and serve as president.
So without any further ado, here are the Top Ten Birther*Arguments against Ted Cruz’s eligibility, and the reasons they are completely wrong.
Argument 1 – “Natural-born citizen” (NBC) and “Citizen at birth” (CaB) have completely different meanings.
Answer – No, they do not. They are synonymous. If you think the idea they aren’t synonymous is silly, you may not need to go on, because unless it is true, the entire debate is over. You would also be in agreement with the Congressional Research Service, which published a paper in 2011 reaching the same conclusion. Trying to argue that they do not mean the same thing is akin to claiming the terms dog and domestic canine mean completely different things. The burden of proof rests with the Eligibility Challengers. I have never heard or read anyone provide any proof whatsoever for the contention these terms have different meanings. There is no case law, and nothing else in the U.S. code or the Constitution itself, lending support to the idea that the two terms have separate meanings. Claims to the contrary are dealt with serially throughout this primer.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernfreepress.com ...
I’m talking about definitive court rulings where a judge actually ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen, I am not talking about judges’ dismissals of lawsuits on the grounds of lack of standing by plaintiffs.
For example, you might remember the Obama eligibility challenge in Georgia where Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, refused to sow up for the trial. Georgia Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili offered the plaintiffs a default ruling as a punitive measure against Jablonski but the plaintiffs said that they wanted “a trial on the merits.” Judge Mahili granted the plaintiffs’ request and there was a trial.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/williams/120104
Judge Mahili then ruled as follows: Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v. Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
The plaintiffs then appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Georgia Fulton County Superior Court. They upheld Judge Mahili. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court which also upheld the trial judge.
There were then appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States which refused to review the lower court’s decision.
Brian Kemp, the Secretary of State if Georgia approved Obama for the Georgia ballot.
You can also watch about 30 minutes of the court hearing in Purpura and Moran v. Obama in New Jersey on YouTube:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?autoplay=1&v=l49PTOtnQvg
The judge in that trial also ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.
“Our Founding Fathers rejected English interpretations in favor of Vattel’s every chance they had.’
According to Alexander Hamilton to determine the meaning of terms in the Constitution, we should look to the English legal system.
“...where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.” 1795
John McCain was indeed born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station’s “Family Hospital.” McCain’s mother Roberta, who was there at the time! has confirmed it.
The “birth certificate” which has the he was born in Colon, Panama is a fake.
The Coco Solo Naval Hospital was rebuiit and expanded several years after McCain’s birth.
The following link is to the only member of the media who has actually seen the McCain birth certificate:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html
This is an interesting distinction, but I think it founders on the notion of declaratory statutes:
Declaratory statute is a statute enacted to clarify prior law by reconciling conflicting judicial decisions or by explaining the meaning of a prior statute. Declaratory statute merely declares the existing law without proposing any additions or changes. The purpose of a declaratory statute is to declare or settle the law where its correct interpretation has been doubtful or uncertain. Declaratory statute is a statute which is expressive of the common law.In other words, just because there's a manmade law about something, that doesn't mean it's not also natural law. Think of a statute that says something like "the man who was married to the mother when the child was conceived or born and has acted and behaved as if the child was his own, is presumed to be the child's father." That doesn't mean the man is not the child's father by natural law too. As I understand them, the statutes that say Cruz (and Obama, if he was born in Hawaii) are natural-born citizens are of the declaratory type. In fact, the person who proposed the opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment said,
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
Self ping
I like Cruz very much as a voice for me. However, I don’t believe now is the time to divert attention away from what I think is Obama’s Achilles heel of Obama’s eligibility for POTUSA let alone his citizenship. Others are much engaged to strike that heel. As to that point I believe Obama’s blood roots are in Indonesia as well as much of his childhood was there but birth was in Kenya. As to POTUSA possibilities for GOP I see Kurt Goudy rising fast with his out front comments and challenges. I see Lee and Lt. Col. West and a couple of other young people who would be great. Even Palin could be in the bunch if the political environment became fitting. I don’t like any of the GOP front operators of today.
Of course, the finding about the birth certificate resulted only from Orly Taitz calling unqualified expert witnesses, but this was still a full trial on the merits, not a dismissal for lack of standing.
Why on earth did you feel the need to drag up this stuff again?
As has Cruz.
I've seldom found him to be worth arguing with. He exudes irrationality.
Under the laws in effect at that time, children born abroad of parents only one of whom was a U.S. citizen were natural born citizens only if the citizen were the father.
Your legal arguments are as persuasive as Roe v Wade.
I don't think I've ever seen a Vattel-Birther even so much as acknowledge this quote from Hamilton. Replies that are made to a post containing it just skip past it. The "I'll just pretend it doesn't exist" technique. DiogenesLamp is an exemplar of that technique.
It undermines their arguments on several levels.
I would also point out that there is more than one quote from Bingham, and the other quotes spell it out exactly that he didn't consider the children of people who owed allegiance to foreign countries as being citizens.
I got into a long argument with Obama defender "Jeff Winston" and I called him out for deliberately truncating Bingham's quote that spelled out exactly to whom Bingham was referring.
He truncated Bingham's quote because he was claiming Bingham was on his side. In fact, Bingham says twice that the children of people owing foreign allegiance are not citizens, and that the 14th amendment would not make them so.
The Brits didn't have "Citizens", they had "Subjects." As the condition of a subject is completely incompatible with the condition of a citizen, putting forth a claim of ownership on someone simply because they were born on the King's soil is not compatible with the principles of American independence.
“’Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” —U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark [169 US 649] (1898)
You came up with a good analogy since Roe v. Wade is stare decisis.
STARE DECISIS
Lat. “to stand by that which is decided.” The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
“To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.
An appeal court’s panel is “bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions.” United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, “It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . ‘is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.’” (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.”
I ended the quote where I did because the next sentence is ambiguous. Is it a list of three categories with some words and a conjunction missing: "...[1] foreigners, [2] aliens, [3 and those who] belong to..."?
Or do the commas around "aliens" mean it's an appositive, as though they were dashes or parentheses: "...foreigners (aliens) who belong to..."?
I've seen that argument thrashed out here before, with no clear conclusion, and since it wasn't relevant to my point, I didn't see any reason to bring it up again.
...every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty...
The question is what "not owing allegiance to" means. The Wong Kim Ark court said this:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were...not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom.and
Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.In other words, foreigners--aliens--as long as they're in this country on friendly terms, owe allegiance to this country, not any other. You may think the court decided wrong, but that's what they decided.
And they bear the same relationship as does King to President.
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.