Posted on 01/17/2016 3:30:54 PM PST by Walt Griffith
Two things. First, I wonder how the feds defined ”resident” in the late 1700s?
Also, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had lamented the problem that Presidents Washington and Adams were signing into law bills concerning aliens and other issues which rookie constitutional federal lawmakers had no constitutional authority to make. (The excerpts concerning aliens are at the bottom of this post.)
For example, here is a reference to Jeffersons official report to President Washington that traitor Hamiltons national bank was unconstitutional, but which Washington ended up signing anyway.
”A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” - Jeffersons Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
Also, here is a reference to Madisons veto of the public works bill. In the constitutionally required veto explanation to the House, Madison indicates that the General Welfare Clause (1.8.1) is not an express delegation of power as lawmakers evidently thought, but an introductory clause for the clauses that followed it in Section 8 of Article I which are specific delegations of power.
Veto of federal public works bill
Here are the excerpts from writngs of Jefferson and Madison which condemn Adams alien law as unconstitutional.
Here is the relevant excerpt from Jeffersons writings.
” 4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ”the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the - day of July, 1798, intituled ”An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” - Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.
”That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the ”Alien and Sedition Acts” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, . . .. . .
. . . the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”- James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.
Interesting read.
This Birther crap is nothing but a distraction from the hundreds of REAL ISSUES from which this nation is suffering but the circular firing squad crowd just MUST keep up their obsession with this irrelevant nonsense.
As to Cruz: He was born in Canada as McCain was born in Panama and as Obozo likely was hatched in Kenya and George Romney was born in Mexico (of parents who apparently had no intention of returning to the US although they eventually did). Thus he is not an NBC by locus of birth but rather by jus sanguinis (the law of blood relationship). He IS an NBC because his mother was an American citizen from her birth and never relinquished her citizenship though she resided with his then Cuban father in Canada.
If Cruz had been born on United States soil, THAT would have been sufficient unless his parent(s) were in the diplomatic service of some foreign government (which they were not) and therefore NOT SUBJECT to our laws by diplomatic immunity.
The worst that can be said for Cruz and his parents at the time of his birth is that, residing in Canada, made them subject to Canada's laws while they were in Canada. Just as if you or I would go to Paris to enjoy the museums and the restaurants we would be subject to French law while in France. If an illegal alien bandito robs a bank in San Antonio, he cannot successfully claim not to be subject to US and Texas laws against bank robbery, just because his citizenship is in a foreign land.
Where ONE parent or both is an American citizen, their child can be born in outer space, much less Canada, and the American citizenship flows from parent to child at birth.
A natural born citizen is a natural born citizen.
If every single member of the Constitutional Convention and every single state legislator who voted to ratify it, acknowledged Vattel's Law of Nations during their deliberations, that book would not in any way modify what was actually enacted. The Constitution IS what it IS and not what "Birthers" wish it to be, no matter how ardently.
Influential as he deserves to be for his monumental role in American history, Jefferson was diplomat in France during the Constitutional Convention. George Washington, John Jay and Benjamin Franklin were there but their personal motives and the sources they may have relied upon do not, ummm, trump what they and others enacted.
A national debt nearing $21 trillion with annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion, thanks to Obozo, McConnell, Ryan-o and their latest Cromnibus; 60 million slaughtered innocent babies and counting; Fudgepacking posing as the basis for "marriage" according to SCOTUS; Iran busily building nuclear weapons capability and obtaining ICBMs as well; disarmament of our own military lest the next administration be tempted to defend Western Civilization and our own population; forced retirement of the leading general officers and senior noncoms as well in each service; envirowhackos seeking to use globaloney "climate change" as an excuse to end what is left of American industry; colossal numbers of now unemployable Americans forced into the clutches of the welfare state; refusal to address the impending financial collapse of Social Security and Medicare by Obozo's policies; unrestrained immigration particularly from Islamofascist hellholes and a direct threat to the physical well-being and security of our people; gun grabbing and never-ending attempts to confiscate all private weapons lest we be able to defend ourselves from domestic criminals, illegal alien criminals, Islamofascist nutcases and other Obozo allies; etc., etc., etc. And all that the Birthers, including (increasingly) The Donald and his supporters can obsess on is Birtherism??????
I still intend to vote for Cruz in the primary and either Cruz or Trump in the general, whoever has the GOP nomination between the two of them or even Marco Rubio, but this Birther crapola is not inspiring confidence.
A natural born citizen is a natural born citizen...
Yes, and Ted is a natural born citizen of Canada. You can not be a natural born citizen of two countries.
Dicta are not part of the law of the case and thus are of NO FORCE AND EFFECT. If the dicta were that the day of the decision the sky was blue and cloudless, dicta are dicta and of no force and effect.
Jay was overseas at the time.
ON, NTSA
Now, a challenge: name THREE issues that you admit are MORE important to you than this Birther business. Just three will do.
Well, that’s difficult. There is no issue more important to me than that this country follow our constitution.
Past that, a wall, a stop to illegal immigration, a temporary stop to legal immigration, an economy that works and jobs.
By the way, John McCain is a citizen by virtual of paperwork filed to show he was born of American citizens. Obama is not and never was a “natural born citizen.”
Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The reality is, the only reason it's dicta is that Wong wasn't trying to be President. If he had in fact been suing to validate his eligibility for President then the exact same text you dismiss as dicta makes absolutely clear that he would be eligible. That logic doesn't go away because it's dicta. It doesn't stop existing because he wasn't trying to be President. That same reasoning will lead to the same answer when it's applied to a Presidential candidate.
Cruz’s mother was a citizen of Deleware, and never renounced her citizenship.
McCain's birth required no naturalization whatsoever in that his father was in Panama with his mother engaged in winning the naval war in WW II. His father was in a position of high command serving this nation. If we are going to strain at gnats under such circumstances and so "interpret" the constitution as to require "paperwork" by now undoubtedly buried in some dung heap of bureaucratic archives to prove McCain a NBC, we should be ashamed of ourselves as a nation. If this is what the Founding Fathers wanted, then they should have explicitly defined such xenophobia but they did not.
The wall has become regrettably necessary thanks to the flood of illegals egged on by Obozo. An economy that works FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and not their mega-donor economic rulers. A temporary halt to legal immigration, maybe, with suitable exceptions.
Where Ted Cruz was born, especially since he was born to an American citizen mother and is ipso facto an NBC, is of little or no interest by comparison.
I have been a conservative since 1964 when I was a high school student. If I am still alive, I will be a conservative when Trump is no longer an issue. I will vote for him IF he is nominated but I will do so knowing that he will gravely disappoint his enthusiasts in office and cause the GOP to decline even further ideologically than it already has and that can only be the most modest of good news for Americans and only compared to the Arkansas Medusa.
Modest improvement over 2012 when we nominated Mitt Romney, the baby killer who was and is the Charles Manson of American "politics" of the brain dead elitist division.
Apparently we never knew you either. I practiced law for several decades and briefed a lot of cases. How about you? This is not "wishin and hopin" or philosophy class. Rather we are talking constitutional law. In legal terms, your argument about Wong not running for POTUS may be stated as follows. SCOTUS rules only on genuine cases in controversy and otherwise has no jurisdiction to rule (not that the modern SCOTUS might be phased by mere rules when they might have an opportunity to further destroy our civilization). Wong was not running for POTUS. SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to rule on a case not before it. Further, no party to Wong asked the SCOTUS to rule on POTUS eligibility. Further, no party to the case had standing (another jurisdictional prerequisite) to raise such a question on the facts in Wong. I know you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to believe otherwise but what you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to believe is no substitute for the actual constitution. That is what the courts have been consistently HOLDING and not just in irrelevant dicta.
Not to be indelicate, but Wong was also handed down during a time when the USA was plagued by a national hysteria over what was called "The Yellow Peril" in which the alarmists of that time (perhaps a SCOTUS justice or two) were convinced that the yellow hordes of Asia and particularly of China would swamp America via mass immigration. It seems embarrassing to recall that mindset as with the WW II internment of Japanese Americans but we cannot change history. We can only make history in futuro and try to avoid previous mistakes.
Missing the point still. The fact that the explanation for why Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen is dicta does not mean it is irrelevant. It’s not binding, we all get that. But even a binding decision can be reversed by a later court. That’s not the point.
The point is that the logic expressed in that dicta is clear, that the Supreme Court did once look at this issue, and that another court looking at the same facts is going to end up the same way. That’s why it’s not irrelevant. Not because it’s binding, but because it examines the same history.
In fact it’s you who REALLY, REALLY wants that case to go away, because it doesn’t bode well for birthers. But if this ever gets to the Supreme Court birthers better be braced for disappointment.
Is there a statute that covers that very situation?
8 U.S.C. 1409 Children born out of wedlock?
8 U.S.C. 1431 Children born outside the United States and residing permanently in the United States; conditions under which citizenship automatically acquired?
That is before it was amended entirely in 2000.
Speaking of statutes, Congress can only make laws governing naturalization. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.
Positive law (man made law) can't make someone a natural born citizen, only natural law can.
How can your statement be correct?
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.