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 ...
“There is a problem with a simple andsubstitution of citizen in place of subject”
You are ignoring the fact the Founders used both terms interchangeably. The Massachusetts Acts of Naturalization between 1785 and 1791 are the best example of this. You are also ignoring the fact that zecefL of the states expressly incorporated the English Common Law into their constitutions.
Believe as you wish. I have posted many relevant sources. If you wish to ignore them in face of the facts that EVEN BEFORE the Revolutionary War, Franklin referred to the extensive use of The Law of Nations among those who would become our Founding Fathers, feel free to do so. To infer that AFTER the Revolution the new Government would exclusively adhere to the beliefs of our enemy, is tantamount to idiocy. But then again, it seems to be a condition of the modern day citizen.
“If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term.”
Well...from the meaning of the common law term “natural born subject”. And that MEANING was covered by Blackstone.
We did NOT adopt English common law and let it rule us. We did, however, use legal terms as they were commonly understood in the day - and as they had been used by legislatures even before the US Constitution. Remember, the US Constitution is NOT the first time the term NBC was used. It was already in common use in Massachusetts, and used interchangeably with NBS.
Vattel WAS a recognized authority - ON INTERNATIONAL LAW. He was NOT an authority on US/UK law, and there is only one record of him ever being brought up during the discussions that resulted in the Constitution or in the discussions that resulted in the Constitution being ratified.
He did not use the French term for NBC, ever. The English translations available at the time ALL used the term “indigene”, not “NBC”. Had the Founders followed Vattel on citizenship, they would have required the President be an “indigenous citizen”.
Would the Founders have wanted the President governed by any law other than US law? Were the Several States not then regarded as separate legal entities with authority over who was and was not a citizen of their respective States? What other authority would have been so useful to them, outside of a recognized authority on international law? They had broken away from another nation as a result of war, with repercussions continuing on until at least 1812. It was a matter of international law with which they were dealing.
Obviously, you have not read my posts with any degree of comprehension, so stick to your worship of Blackstone. There’s no helping you.
So you believe that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Framer Oliver Ellsworth was an idiot?
“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)
Sorry but that is incorrect. All persons, legally entering the US - and yes even US Citizens, naturalized or not, NBC or not, are REQUIRED to provide a government recognized ID (passport) upon entry.
I am a NBC by any ones measure. Both parents US Citizens and born on US soil. I still have to provide a passport to enter the US and I have come into the US from Canada, England, Germany, Australia, China and a few other parts of the world.
During the years that his parents worked in Canada and Ted was born, you only needed an ID to go back and forth between the US and Canada. Ted did not get a passport until he was 16 and needed it to go on a class trip to England.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-ted-cruz-born-a-citizen-of-canada-under-the-countrys-immigration-rules.ece
Friend, I was talking about at the time, what you are talking about is recent changes that have been made RE Canada And Mexico travel.
I know, I'm trying to get a few others here to understand that very point.
“What other authority would have been so useful to them, outside of a recognized authority on international law?”
For defining their own citizenship? Are you serious?
Their own citizenship was being disputed internationally. It makes perfect sense.
Coming from Canada into the US was a little different back in the 70’s. In general, a passport wasn’t even needed to pass between the two countries. It has only been in the last 10-15 years that a passport has been required to go between Canada and the US for citizens of either country. And I think I read that Ted got his passport when he went on an international trip when he was in high school.
ahhh, Sorry, I misunderstood
So you believe George Mason, principle architect along with James Madison, of the Constitution of Virginia(the first in the nation) , as well as principle architect of Virginia’s Bill if Rights, member of the Cconstitutional Committee and dissenter thereof due to the lack of a provision to free the slaves,was an idiot?
Still funny.
He wrote an pamphlet with a list of his objections:
"There is no declaration of rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several States, the declarations of rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law, which stands here upon no other foundation than its having been adopted by the respective acts forming the Constitutions of the several States."
James Iredell one of the first Supreme Court Justices nominated by President Washington wrote a reply,
"As to the common law, it is difficult to know what is meant by that part of the objection. So far as the people are now entitled to the benefit of the common law, they certainly will have a right to enjoy it under the new Constitution until altered by the general legislature, which even in this point has some cardinal limits assigned to it. What are most acts of Assembly but a deviation in some degree from the principles of the common law? The people are expressly secured (contrary to Mr. Mason's wishes) against ex post facto laws; so that the tenure of any property at any time held under the principles of the common law, cannot be altered by any future act of the general legislature. The principles of the common law, as they now apply, must surely always hereafter apply, except in those particulars in which express authority is given by this constitution; in no other particulars can the Congress have authority to change it, and I believe it cannot be shown that any one power of this kind given is unnecessarily given, or that the power would answer its proper purpose if the legislature was restricted from any innovations on the principles of the common law, which would not in all cases suit the vast variety of incidents that might arise out it."
James Madison wrote a letter to General Washington wondering what the hell Mason meant by the people would not have the common law.
"What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed."
So no Mason was not an idiot, he was wrong.
George Mason’s issue (and Jefferson’s too) was that the Bill of Rights were not included as part of the original Constitution.
“A Plain Citizen”
A Plain Citizen, or as Vatelle said in the original, “un citoyen vanille”, was well known to the founding fathers, as was the Chocolate Citizen (un citoyen chocolat - which only counted for three fifths), and the “Red” or “Strawberry” Citizen (un citoyen fraise) which they did not count at all.
This is exactly the thing that bothered me most about Obama — his entire family evidentally became citizens of Indonesia and he [as Barry S] had to be muslim to go to school there. All ignored despite our efforts here.
If Cruz’ mother had registered to vote in Canada, I’m no legal eagle, but how can a US citizen do that? Would that not be dangerous to have dual-citizen votes from South-of-Border? Voting trains and voting cruizes for voting vacations?
This to me stretches natural-born status pretty thin if it exists at all.
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.