The conservative media's civil war over Ted Cruz 'birtherism'

> “That’s all Trump was saying. Get a judgment”

Did I say anything different? Perhaps you should read through the thread before where I posted precisely that.

> “In my mind if CRUZ goes down so does BHO and that may be the end plan”

Garbage. Obama is alleged to have been born in Hawaii, Cruz is known to have been born in Canada. Cruz is eligible, so is Obama if IF Obama was born in Hawaii of an America citizen mother. Both of Obama’s claims are highly questionable, Cruz’ facts are facts.

> “CRUZ is a patriot he loves his country and the constitution ! Would he be as our founders and place his sacred honor on the line ???”

Did I say anything different?

> “Have made some points that seem to be indicative of TC and DT working to that end. If accomplished many D people will be wearing orange. And others will be extremely discredited”

I follow Donald Trump extremely closely. Back in early December, he said he liked Ted Cruz immensely and that he and Ted Cruz agreed on everything. He also said, and cautioned the huge crowd at his rally that he might have to “go to war” with Ted if it got close. That’s alright because it’s a primary and mudslinging is expected.

Donald is throwing uncertainty at Ted’s eligibility because he wants to win. Ted is throwing Donald’s associations (sh*thead Tribe) to the voters because he wants to win.

I have said starting last summer that Donald would win because he pulls in more demographics than Ted. I predicted back then that Donald would take 35% to 40%, and Ted 15% to 20%, that the two of them would form a ticket Trump-Cruz at greater than 50% thereby denying the bastards in the establishment a brokered convention.

I also repeated ad nauseam in posts that people on FR should not allow themselves to be played as fools in a media-hyped Trump v. Cruz fight. Already the aholes in the media are playing it up as a ‘civil war’ among GOP conservatives. And that is precisely what is happening on this thread where certain posters have been hitting the stupid juice.

> “No further comments”

As Ted would say, “Yeah Yeah Sure”.

RE: Can you present the positive?

Honestly, the only positive I can give is this — Ted Cruz was born of an American mother in Canada, and based on the OVERALL understanding, of the history and text of the constitution, he is natural born because he DID NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH the naturalization process to be American.

Jus sanguinis — the law of blood — held that a child’s citizenship flowed from the parents’ allegiance, regardless of place of birth.

This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors.

The principle of jus sanguinis in 1788 applied to patrilineal descent only: A person born in a foreign country was viewed as a “natural born Citizen” of his or her father’s country.

However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband’s — much rarer then than today — could not be a “natural born Citizen” of the mother’s country. That idea wasn’t even considered until 1844 in Victorian England.

In a textualist view of the Constitution, historical context is also important because “natural born Citizen” has no modern plain meaning and the words don’t appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Textualists, by contrast to originalists, favor written statutes in mining historical context. In this case, two American laws enacted in 1784 and 1790 are applicable, along with older English statutes which use the similar words “natural born subject.”

In 1784, the Maryland Legislature extended “all the Immunities, Rights and Privileges of natural born Citizen” to the Marquis de Lafayette “and his heirs Male forever.” And, in 1790, Congress passed a law stating that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” It didn’t specify which parent, mother or father or both, but the background principle of jus sanguinis leads to the conclusion that it referred to American fathers.

The 1790 statute, however, was not intended to address presidential eligibility. Rather, like earlier English statutes that referred to “natural born subjects,” it exempted children born abroad from the need to follow any other procedures (”to naturalize”) in order to be considered citizens. Then in 1940, Congress passed a statute dispensing with the need for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother to naturalize.

Taken all together, these laws would cause a textualist to conclude that Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother in 1970, is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president.

At least, that’s how I see it.

RE: from that natural law of our Creator, it naturally follows that it takes two citizens to make a “natural born” citizen,

Where in the law of our Creator ( e.g. the Bible ) does it tell us that?

Why does it require TWO citizens to make one natural born?

Why not simply the father or mother?

RE: citizenship as would be determined solely by the law of nature, by parents and birth soil alone, agreed?

I will agree if you modify the plural with the singular.

If you do not need to go through the naturalization process to be a citizen, then you are BY BIRTH, a citizen, i.e., natural born.

RE: Based on the number of mistakes you made in your analysis of the case (you got the case right, just didn’t really apply it to Cruz

Oh yes I did, and I said that the case should not apply to Cruz. In fact it should not have applied to Aldo Bellei himself.

I did say that there are many times I disagree with the SCOTUS and I cited several of their decisions. This is one of them.

RE: you gave the citizenship stripping part attention, and that part is irrelevant to the Cruz situation), and what appears to be a good faith an earnest (and civil) answer, I think it’s innocent error.

Let’s go back to the case you mentioned:

The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis).

Here’s what I disagree with — The Revised Statute of 1874 SHOULD NOT EVEN APPLY TO Bellei.

What should apply to Bellei is the understanding of the term “natural born” as used in Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution.

In other words, did the framers already have an understanding of what the term meant when they wrote it?

If so, then THAT understanding is a basic constitutional right that should apply to Bellei, not the subsequent act written nearly a hundred years later.

In other words, Bellie is being treated like a green card holder (green card holders are required to fulfill 5 year residency requirements), not a natural born citizen by the SCOTUS. That SHOULD NOT have been the case.

Thankfully, Congress acknowledged the mistake of that provision and repealed it in 1978.

I'm glad you posted. I was thinking about you, not in any creepy way, and was going to look for our exchange to add another perspective.

If Bellei was an NBC, as you posit, then the case is about whether or not Congress can strip citizenship from an NBC. Of course, such a case would not come about, but if one labels Bellei an NBC, then the case becomes, "Can Congress strip citizenship from an NBC on a basis of residency."

Another way to say it is that this case wouldn't even exist if Bellei was NBC.

Just think about that, no need to reply. You've been a great foil in this discussion. I think you are a good egg. Really, sincerely and honestly, I think that.

RE: Another way to say it is that this case wouldn’t even exist if Bellei was NBC.

I’d really like to agree with you ( and not simply because I support Ted Cruz ).

For me, the case simply tells us that the Congress AT THAT TIME, thought NBC would mean.

If that were a permanent constitutional understanding based on something that is clear, there would have been no need to repeal what they did a hundred years later.

The point I am trying to drive at is this — WE DO NOT HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT NBC means since the framers did not EXPLAIN what they meant by the term.

Had Madison for instance clearly explained it in say, the Federalist papers, and in effect said, the following are requirements that must be met in order for one to be considered “natural born”, then we would understand what they meant and he SHOULD follow the law ( even if an excellent candidate like cruz were to be disqualified ).

Therefore, we need to do these:

1) Repeal that clause and take it out

2) Explain the clause and what it means TODAY and make that understanding APPLICABLE henceforth.

Number 2 is the easier course, but it will require an act of the people through their representatives.

Natural born citizenship is a three part deal at birth:

1/3 from the Father + 1/3 from the Mother + 1/3 from the Soil.

If each part is the same, then that person is a 100% Natural born citizen.

If the parts aren't all the same, that person is most likely a citizen at birth, as would be determined by laws governing Naturalization at the time of birth, but not a "Natural Born" citizen.

According to the "official" story and his questionable birth certificates, Barry obama is a 2/3 Natural Born American citizen, but considered to be a 100% American citizen.

Born to foreign citizen parents on America soil, Marco Rubio is 1/3 Natural Born American citizen, but considered to be a 100% American citizen.

Foreign born to (most likely) an American citizen mother and a foreign citizen father, Ted Cruz is a 1/3 Natural Born American citizen, but considered to be a 100% American citizen.

Born in America to American citizens, Donald Trump is a 100% Natural Born American citizen and a 100% American citizen.

There is a trail of documentation to follow, from the beginning until now, if you're willing and able to see the footprints, but things do get in the way in these times.

-- For me, the case simply tells us that the Congress AT THAT TIME, thought NBC would mean. --

I think you might be missing the point of view I'm trying to impart.

First, it's not what Congress thought, it is what SCOTUS thought. I'm showing you a handle on what SCOTUS thought in 1971 and all of time before then.

If Bellei was an NBC, then he could not be stripped of his citizenship. There would be no case. If somehow, it got stripped, SCOTUS would say, simply (and this is slam dunk unanimous), you can't strip citizenship from an NBC, period, end of discussion.

The fact that the case exists, the fact that SCOTUS took the case, and split 5-4, results in an inescapable conclusion that SCOTUS saw Bellei as naturalized.

I don't think it's quite as compelling a way to see from this perspective, but another way is to ponder what would have happened if Bellei had argued he was NBC, instead of conceding he was naturalized. Maybe he did in the lower courts, and that argument was abandoned. But if Bellei argues he's NBC, then the court would ask him to show how he gets there without the statute.

RE: First, it’s not what Congress thought, it is what SCOTUS thought. I’m showing you a handle on what SCOTUS thought in 1971 and all of time before then.

I think I already told you where I am coming from.... I DO NOT AGREE with what the SCOTUS thought because there was NO REFERENCE to what the constitution MEANT by NBC.

They referred to a law written in 1874 that was subsequently repealed.

Let me try to “agree” with you somewhat by saying that I would agree that the SCOTUS were right had there FIRST BEEN a case challenging the constitutionality of the 1874 statute itself and a decision made saying, YES, we henceforth believe that the 1874 statute IS the constitutional understanding of what it means to be NBC.

But there was no such challenge, that is why that statute was open to repeal.

Referring to a statute to strip someone of citizenship because he did not meet some residency requirement ( a requirement never outlined in the constitution) does mean referring to the text of the constitution.

So, here are the steps that should have been taken if I were to agree with Rogers vs. Bellei:

1) CHALLENGE THE 1874 STATUTE’s constitutionality

2) UPHOLD the STATUTE’s constitutionality

3) Apply #2 to Bellei.

Step 1 and 2 were missing, therefore the decision is questionable.

it is therefore, time to REVISIT the issue once and for all TODAY and make a final judgment.

Where is that definition written from any framers of the constitution?

It's probably in the same place where "is" is defined.

Ask word bender Barry obama or past champ Bill Clinton. They would be your best bet for help with that.

Personally, when learning a language and culture, one can find a word's meanings in a dictionary and/or by observing how it is used.

The best understanding comes from using both techniques together, but sometimes you don't have that luxury.

Whatever your reason(s), you're very strongly attached to your point of view and I'm okay with that.

When and if you're ready, willing and able, the truth is out there. It's that way with everything.

I'm not arguing they [SCOTUS] were right. The case only exists if "Bellie was naturalized" was taken as "true" by SCOTUS.

That's the ONLY point I am trying to make. I am not arguing on the merits. I am not arguing policy. I am not arguing what should be. I am merely saying that "SCOTUS found Bellei to be naturalized" is a true statement.

The issue with the statute wasn't that Bellei was naturalized. The issue with the statute was that it enabled taking his citizenship away without his assent. There is no question at all about congress power to naturalize Bellei. The argument in the case was whether Congress could take his citizenship away, after it gave it him.

OK, we seem to be agreeing that just because the SCOTUS thought that Bellei was naturalized, does not necessarily make it “true”.

Therefore, the point I am trying to drive at still stands — the issue of NBC is INCONCLUSIVE at this time.

Since the “truth” of that belief is in question, we should be remedying that once and for all TODAY.

This is not simply for folks like Ted Cruz. This will be true for every other future candidates for President out there.

The interesting question becomes — Do we let someone become a candidate for the Presidency based on an issue that is inconclusive?

Here's another way to look at it. Have you ever bought or sold a home?

Citizenship is sorta like a title in property law.

A Natural Born citizen, as defined as born in country to citizen parents, has a "clear" title, so to speak.

It is free and clear of any and all liens, claims and encumbrances against it going one generation back.

Not being Natural Born, Ted Cruz doesn't have a "clear" title at birth.

There are two blemishes on Ted Cruz's "title", two claims and potential liens or encumbrances against it, so to speak.

Seen from this perspective, Ted Cruz's claim to title (citizenship) required naturalization to remove those blemishes/claims against his title in order for it to be considered "Free and clear".

Natural Born Donald Trump has a free and clear title at birth. He's also really, really good at real estate, too.

In all honesty, "Cruz for President" has me feeling sorry for Ted and I hate feeling sorry for anyone or anything. But seriously, what a shame. So much potential, too. Oh well..

If you can show me that, then yes, I'll change my mind.

Maybe so. Sometimes, with some things, it's just harder for some reason. I don't know why that is.

When I was trying to electronics, for the life of me I could NOT understand a transistor.

I read every book, every explanation, talked to the teachers and with people with a working understanding, but I just couldn't get it. It was beyond frustrating!!!

Then, as if by magic, one day it just made perfect sense and was so obvious I couldn't understand why I couldn't understand it before.

-- OK, we seem to be agreeing that just because the SCOTUS thought that Bellei was naturalized, does not necessarily make it "true". --

That's correct. Now our only difference is how strongly SCOTUS will cling to that position. You can do that calculus on your own. My opinion is that there is about a 20% chance SCOTUS will attach jus sanguinas to the constitution. it might conclude with a sentence like, "If Congress wants to grant citizenship by blood, it can, and it has, and those persons are naturalized citizens, with full rights of citizenship except the right to hold the office of president or vice president."

I could be assigning too much stability to the Court. Maybe it's itching to expand the right to presidency to all naturalized citizens, and will read the constitution so that "naturalized is deemed to be natural born." Nice chatting. We've beat it to death.

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.