RE: Ted Cruz said the theory is supposed to be that both parents have to be natural born citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen. That is a lie. The parents only need to be naturalized citizens or natural born citizens, and not just natural born citizens.
Let’s be accurate here. Referring to what people have argued in the past does not make it a lie. It makes it a RECOGNITION that such theories exist.
Cruz was referring to theories being touted by MANY people who insist that both parents have to be natural born citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen.
Of course that theory is NOT a lie. The best you can call it is that it is a MIS-UNDERSTANDING of the term “natural born” as it applies to a child.
But to say that such theories do not exist does not comport with reality. THEY DO. I’ve debated it with a few FReepers myself.
RE:He said this falsehood,
Let’s make that a bit more accurate.
He REFERRED to this falsehood which is believed by quite a number of people interested in this subject in order to rebut it.
What's really upsetting is the Trumpsters are circling like sharks in the bloody water... not around one of the RINOS, but around the most solid conservative in the race. People don't forget stuff like this in the general.
That said, I won't be intimidated, and sent Cruz another $100. Talk is cheap.
“Cruz was referring to theories being touted by MANY people who insist that both parents have to be natural born citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen.”
The only ones I have seen calling for two citizen parents said just that, two CITIZEN parents, not two NATURAL BORN citizen parents. It should be obvious that if two natural born citizen parents were required there never would have been ANY natural born citizens in this country since there were no natural born citizens at the time the country was founded. That is the reason for the clause saying, “...or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution.” The exception had to be made because there were no natural born citizens over the age of 35 until at least 35 years after the constitution was adopted.
“Let’s be accurate here. Referring to what people have argued in the past does not make it a lie. It makes it a RECOGNITION that such theories exist.”
It is a lie, because Ted Cruz invented the nonsensical claim and used the invented lie to divert the attention of the audience away from his own ineligibility and make a failed attempt to make it look as if Trump had the same eligibility problem. In reality, Ted Cruz’s invention is not only not the historical definition being used, his claim also would make it impossible for any natural born U.S. citizens to exist at all. A child cannot have a perpetual chain of natural born citizen parents and ancestors, because the first generation of citizens have to have been naturalized as citizens before there can be any natural born citizen children. The definition being used to disqualify Ted Cruz, Barack Hussein Obama, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, John McCain, George Romney, and others is the actual definition for the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution that comes from various historical case law, naturalization acts, and legal treatises, and most particularly from:
Emmerich de Vattel: The Law of Nations
BOOK I. OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.
CHAP. XIX. OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
“Cruz was referring to theories being touted by MANY people who insist that both parents have to be natural born citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen.”
That is a false statement. The authors of the Constitution used as one of their principal sources for the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution the above quotation from Emmerich de Vattel: The Law of Nations. Under that doctrine the parents of the child had to be U.S. citizens, and the child had to be born in the allegiance of the United States, which usually meant within the United States. Nowhere does Vattel or any other source require the parents to be natural born citizens. Senator Ted Cruz lied when he said the theory Trump was using required the parents to be natural born citizens.
“Of course that theory is NOT a lie. The best you can call it is that it is a MIS-UNDERSTANDING of the term “natural born†as it applies to a child.”
Of course,, Ted Cruz’s statements were a lie, because he was obligated to know and state the truth, which he most obviously did not do. Any person, especially a Constitutional expert and attorney-at-law, has to know the accusation Ted Cruz made could be nothing more than an impossible fantasy, because the first generation of citizens cannot be natural born citizens. Cruz is responsible for not engaging in such “so-called misunderstandings.
“But to say that such theories do not exist does not comport with reality. THEY DO. I’ve debated it with a few FReepers myself.”
You can find a Freeper, real or fake, who will say just about anything. That does nothing to change the fact it is already general public knowledge the authors of the natural born citizen clause were using Vattel’s Law of Nations along with other well known legal sources of the time to formulate the natural born citizen clause and the Constitution. Being the professed attorney-at-law and expert on Constitutional law Ted Cruz claims to be, he does not have the option to proclaim ignorance of the law as a defense for his misrepresentation of the natural born citizen clause and its definition. He is obligated to know and respect the definition found in Vattel’s Law of Nations, whether or not he chooses to accept Vattel’s definition as the basis of the natural born citizen clause. He must sill take honest notice of Vattel’s definition rather than deceive the audience with inapplicable impossibilities.
“RE:He said this falsehood,”
Let’s make that a bit more accurate.
“He REFERRED to this falsehood which is believed by quite a number of people interested in this subject in order to rebut it.”
That is itself also a falsehood. No one who is seriously contesting the eligibility of Ted cruz and the others has done so by saying the parents had to be natural born citizens. That is a falsehood and a lie. The opposition is based upon the requirement that the parents must be citizens, not natural born citizens.