Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kabar

RE: Under Ted Cruz’s own logic, he’s ineligible for the White House

Well, let’s put it this way.... the argument can go one way or another since the term “natural born” was not defined by the framers at all. All we can do today is discern the meaning of the term as originally understood.

Therefore, a person is entitled to change his mind.


30 posted on 01/14/2016 8:22:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: SeekAndFind

“Therefore, a person is entitled to change his mind.”

Unless it’s Donald Trump.....


39 posted on 01/14/2016 8:25:53 AM PST by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Therefore, a person is entitled to change his mind.

Did you read the article. It is not about Cruz changing his mind.

People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be. But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an “originalist,” one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.

67 posted on 01/14/2016 8:45:13 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

You better go read Vattel’s Law of Nations (Book 1) - b/c THAT treaties was, at the time of the drafting and ratification of our Constitution, THE authority upon which the founders derived THEIR understanding of the meaning to NBC.

The fact of such understanding and usage cannot be seriously disputed. The idea that the writers of the Constitution should have included an “index,” so as to secure for posterity the intended meaning of the terms used is an absurd proposition, given that all those possessing a sound education in jurisprudence - and most did - understood the plain meaning of such terms and therefore would have no reason to otherwise define them.

One only needs to review the legal documents relevant to that historical period to appreciate what I have just stated.

See: CHAP. XIX. OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT ... Article 212. Citizens and natives. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm


164 posted on 01/14/2016 3:16:22 PM PST by WTFOVR (I find myself exclaiming that expression quite often these days!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson