Posted on 01/08/2016 6:00:09 PM PST by FR_addict
A document uncovered by Breitbart News indicates that the parents of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) were named on a Calgary list of electors for Canada's federal election of July 8, 1974. Ted Cruz parents are listed as Cruz, Eleanor, Mrs. nd Cruz, Raphael, self employed, both at 920 Riverdale Avenue, South West in Calgary, Alberta.
Canadian law restricts (and restricted) federal voting rights to Canadian citizens.
In a statement to Breitbart News—the full text of which follows this article—Jason Johnson, chief strategist for Cruz for President, said that “the document itself does not purport to be a list of ‘registered Canadian voters.’ All this might conceivably establish is that this list of individuals (maybe) lived at the given addresses. It says nothing about who was a citizen eligible to vote.â€
Johnson added: Eleanor was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law. In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970: Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967—only 3 years before Senator Cruz’s birth. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Because I'm a troll. LOL!
Vattel never wrote about natural born citizens. The Founders did not require the President to be a “native citizen†or an “indigenous citizen†- which would follow Vattel - but a “natural born citizenâ€, a term used interchangeably with the English common law term “natural born subjectâ€.
................................................................
Mr. GEORGE MASON.
THURSDAY, June 19, 1788.[1]
. The common law of England is not the common
law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that
Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.
Perhaps you lie, I do not. The day grandson was born, son went to American Embassy and got grandson an American Passport. That is what I said and that is the truth. Go harass someone else - I do not converse with you.
I’ll give you one thing todster you are consistent, consistently against whatever happens to be in the best interests of the USA. You are a good little Chicom troll there todster.
“The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution. ...†Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth in the case of Isaac Williams (1799)
Ellsworth was a Framer.
Wow!
“...What do you think the Founding Fathers meant with that in mind?...”
If we read the law the founders enacted, they specifically state that children born outside the nation to us citizens are (and they use these specific words) “Natural Born Citizens” — Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by a congress that included 8 of the 11 framers of the US Constitution.
It requires no caveats, interpretation or reading-between-the-lines. If Cruz’s circumstance of birth was acceptable to the founders as NBC, then who am I to argue with them?
Now the only *legal* argument is, “what was the law in effect defining citizens in 1970 on the date of Cruz’s birth? But if we are interested in the opinion of the founding fathers, the N.A of 1790 leaves no doubt. If that law covering Cruz’s birth in 1970 does not define NBC, then do we comb through the legislative record until we *do* find a reference to NBC? If so, we end up back at the N.A. of 1790 which clearly accepts Cruz’s circumstance of birth as NBC and was defined by a congress that included constitutional framers a mere three years after the constitution. It is the only reference to NBC in the legislative record.
Another question: Is Ted Cruz the usurping foreign born US citizen that Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, et al were *terrified* of being President? I seriously doubt it, but that’s just my opinion and opinions will vary.
Of course they referenced Blackstone. His “An analyses of the Laws of England,” published in 1756 was referred to. BUT contrary to general belief, Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” published in 1758, was looked to as the authority on International Law and his explanation of Natural Born was the only one considered by the Constitutional Committee. Those who refer to Blackstone are in error unless one wishes to disregard George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and many others.
Vattel is also heard in the Declaration of independence in the words “....and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,”....................
THE LAW OF NATIONS
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
FROM THE FRENCH OF
MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.
You obviously are unable to understand English. The point was that terms of law used in the Constitution are understood from their common law roots, since that is the meaning all the Framers had learned and used for those words throughout their lives.
As for Vattel, this puts it clearly:
“Although it appears that there is one single reference by one delegate at the Federal Convention of 1787 to Vattel (in reference to several works of different authors to support an argument for equal voting representation of the states in the proposed Congress), there is no other reference to the work in the entire notes of any of the framers published on the proceedings of the Federal Convention of 1787,and specifically there is no reference or discussion of the work at all in relation to citizenship at the Convention, in the Federalist Papers, or in any of the state ratifying conventions.
It would appear to be somewhat fanciful to contend that in employing terms in the U.S.Constitution the framers would disregard the specific and express meaning of those precise terms in British common law, the law in the American colonies, and subsequently in all of the states in the United States after independence, in favor of secretly using, without comment or explanation,a contrary, non-existent English translation of a phrase in a French-language treatise on international law.”
Nor I with you.
” his explanation of Natural Born was the only one considered by the Constitutional Committee”
Actually, there is no recorded discussion anywhere on why that wording was used in the Constitution. There was no debate or discussion of the provision. But my previous post makes it pretty clear why Vattel should NOT be consider useful.
“...as far as can tell Trump has never publicly lied or said one thing only to do another....”
********************************************************************************
How about telling (in effect) ordinary American investors in his bonds “Hell, yes, give me your money and I’ll pay you back with interest” and later (in the actual doing) paying NOTHING back in bankruptcy and causing the investors to LOSE EVERYTHING.
” ...his explanation of Natural Born was the only one considered by the Constitutional Committee.”
Why is there absolutely no mention of that anywhere in the records of the Convention?
Named one of his state’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Mason traveled to Philadelphia, his only lengthy trip outside Virginia. Many clauses in the document bear his stamp, as he was active in the convention for months before deciding he could not sign it. He cited the lack of a bill of rights most prominently in his Objections, but also wanted an immediate end to the slave trade, which he opposed, and a supermajority for navigation acts, which might force exporters of tobacco to use more expensive American ships. Although he lost there, and again at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788, his prominent fight for a bill of rights led his fellow Virginian, James Madison, to introduce one during the First Congress in 1789, and it was ratified in 1791, a year before Mason died. Long obscure, Mason is today recognized for his contributions to the United States, and to Virginia.
See below for George Mason’s statement regarding British Common Law in another post preceding this one.
Your assumption that the newly formed American government committees would not consider Mr. Vattel is indicative of your attitude for anything written in French. French speaking people can READ and understand what is said in french. By the way, the first English Translation made an error in translating which was not discovered until a later edition.
Ted Cruz is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
*************************************************************
I see... on my one hand I have “naturalized citizen” which to me means someone who obtained his citizenship not immediately at birth but sometime later. And, on my other hand, I have “natural born citizen” which to me means someone who has obtained his citizenship IMMEDIATELY UPON BIRTH.
Perhaps you’re trying to add a 3rd category of people who were citizens at birth but were NOT NATURAL BORN (meaning they were delivered by Caesarian section or out of a “test tube”)?
Was Ted Cruz delivered by Caesarian section or from a test tube? Was Donald Trump delivered by Caesarian section or from a test tube? Is ANY of this relevant? Of course not...it’s as silly as your statements.
“See below for George Mason’s statement regarding British Common Law in another post preceding this one.”
It is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. No one is saying America had to follow English common law, but that the meaning of the words used were the meanings all the Framers had grown up with - and those MEANINGS came from English common law.
“Your assumption that the newly formed American government committees would not consider Mr. Vattel is indicative of your attitude for anything written in French.”
What color is the sky in the world where you live?
The point of the quote I provided was that no one mentioned Vattel during their discussions. There is literally ONE mention of him:
“...there is one single reference by one delegate at the Federal Convention of 1787 to Vattel (in reference to several works of different authors to support an argument for equal voting representation of the states in the proposed Congress), there is no other reference to the work in the entire notes of any of the framers published on the proceedings of the Federal Convention of 1787,and specifically there is no reference or discussion of the work at all in relation to citizenship at the Convention, in the Federalist Papers, or in any of the state ratifying conventions.”
It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Vattel was referenced ONE TIME when discussing how the states should be able to vote. That was it. They cannot find any other reference to him being mentioned. Never brought up in discussions on citizenship. Not one time.
Correction: English translation error of “Natives” and “Naturals”
“Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturalsâ€. It is not “Of citizens and natives†as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire†or “indigeneâ€, not as “naturelâ€. For “naturel†to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence. He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel’s use of the word “natives” in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,†which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.”.
If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father’s were influenced from Blackstone’s Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.†George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England was a natural born subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born Citizen can become President. Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Born Subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural born. Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Benjamin Franklin in 1775 thanks Charles Dumas of the Netherlands for sending him 3 more copies of the newest 1775 edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations
Another founder of our nation and framer of our Constitution, Benjamin Franklin, was also quite familiar and well versed with the writings of Vattel. He had his own personal copy prior to the advent of the Revolution. And in 1775 he wrote to Charles Dumas an editor and journalist in the Netherlands and thanked him for sending Franklin 3 copies of the newest edition of Vattel (published in French). Franklin commented to Dumas that his personal copy was in heavy demand by the other delegates to the Continental Congress meeting in 1775. Dumas was the Editor for the newly published 1775 edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations (in the original French) in the Netherlands. Franklin and most of the founders were fluent in French which was the diplomatic language of that time. Dumas also made comments in his writings to Franklin about Vattel’s enlightened writings and vision for a new form of government for a nation where the people were sovereign and the unique opportunity for its application to the affairs in America in the colonies splitting from Great Britain. The words found in our Declaration of Independence mentioning the “Laws of Nature” and the phrase mentioning unalienable rights such as “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” are right out of Volume 1 of Vattel. As are the words of seeking a more perfect union in the Preamble of our Constitution were also inspired by the teachings and writings of Vattel who wrote that government should always be striving to perfect itself to better serve the people. Thus it is quite evident that the founders read and used Vattel extensively. Here is a reprint of the letter from Franklin to Dumas thanking him for sending the books.
Benjamin Franklin to: Charles William Frederic Dumas
Dear Sir,
Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.
I received your several favors, of May 18th, June 30th, and July 8th, by Messrs. Vaillant and Pochard;(1) whom if I could serve upon your recommendation, it would give me great pleasure. Their total want of English is at present an obstruction to their getting any employment among us; but I hope they will soon obtain some knowledge of it. This is a good country for artificers or farmers; but gentlemen of mere science in les belles lettres cannot so easily subsist here, there being little demand for their assistance among an industrious people, who, as yet, have not much leisure for studies of that kind.
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript “Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. “Le court Expose de ce qui s’est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies,” bc. being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.(2) We are making all the provision in our power here to oppose that force, and we hope we shall be able to defend ourselves. But, as the events of war are always uncertain, possibly, after another campaign, we may find it necessary to ask the aid of some foreign power.
CDR Charles Kerchner
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####
P.S. President George Washington in 1789 consulted Vattel’s legal treatise The Law of Nations as America’s new President:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/george-washington-consulted-legal.html
P.P.S. The legal treatise, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, known as the Law of Nations for short, defined the term “naturel” or “natural born Citizen” as a person born in the country of parents (plural) who were Citizens of the country:
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1169
P.P.P.S. Thomas Jefferson also used Vattel’s The Law of Nations to write the founding documents.
####
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.