Posted on 04/12/2016 4:48:11 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas meets the criteria to be considered a “natural born citizen” and can run in New Jersey’s Republican presidential primary on June 7, an administrative law judge ruled Tuesday.
Judge Jeff Masin’s decision will now go to Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who also serves as New Jersey’s secretary of state, for consideration. She can choose to accept it in full or in part, or reject it.
Masin heard arguments Monday on two challenges to Cruz’s eligibility to run for president. In both cases, the challengers argued that, because Cruz was born in Canada, he is not a natural born citizen, one of three constitutional requirements for the presidency.
Cruz, 45, was born in Calgary, Alberta. His mother, a U.S. citizen, was born in Delaware. His father was born in Cuba. Cruz has said that a child of a U.S. citizen is automatically granted citizenship at birth and is therefore “natural born.”
(Excerpt) Read more at northjersey.com ...
And that reason is eloquently summed up by John Godfrey Saxe's wonderful poem, "The Blind men and the Elephant."
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
That is assuming that black slaves were considered by slave owners to be fully human.
In the same way that the unborn are NOW not considered to be human, the slaves were largely considered to be less than human.
They will just redefine East as West, because they really have no power to do anything differently. Nature stubbornly persists in ignoring mankind's efforts to tamper with it.
If you think that massive wall of text was worth reading, then perhaps you can tell me something worthwhile that it said?
One would think that a useful piece of information could be summed up in a sentence or two.
And yet you didn't feel the need to name a single significant point regarding what it said?
What could it have told you that was relevant to a Cruz eligibility thread?
And please don't mention anything that is already widely known.
More like, you have an erroneous understanding of the concept of Natural Law as understood by the founders.
How can people who are not members of a nation become members of a nation without the acquiescence of the existing members of a nation?
They weren't born into it, so the only way they can acquire membership is by adoption, and that was with-held until 1868.
I do not even understand where you are coming from with your argument.
Any American that thinks the son of a Cuban born in Canada is a natural born citizen of the USA is a traitor to our country and our Constitution.
LOL - you refuse to read it because it contains facts that you don’t want to hear.
It’s much easier for you to insult the messenger than to read the post and have doubts cast on Cruz’s manufactured biography.
If the “wall of text” is difficult for you to read, copy it to Wordpad, add more white space and read it a little at a time.
Why not spend the time it takes you to repost the same question actually reading what you keep asking about?
If you're curious, the "massive wall of text" is all about Rafael “TED” Cruz’s eligibility - The whole sordid affair.
Personally, I think it's a fun read.
It's some family stuff about American savior and our newest hero Ted, the young, Moses-like, Christian super-Cruz, who our nation's most highly revered Constitutional(!) Conservatives think should be President and/or a Supreme Court Justice.
We're so lucky!
It has nothing to do with whether they were fully human, it has to do with whether they were ever regarded as a member of the nation.
The root word of "Nation" is "Nat", from which we get words like Natal and Nativity, and it's meaning revolves around birth and nature.
A "Nation" for most of human existence, was mostly a group of genetically similar people that lived in proximity to each other. It was in essence, an extension of the Tribe or Family from which the larger group sprang.
Adoption into the family or tribe could occur, but the normal method was to be born into it.
Members of the Nation-tribe could recognize the humanity of members of other Nation-tribes, but this was not the criteria by which they would be recognized as members of their own Tribe. Unless they were adopted into the tribe, they were regarded as "Alien."
They aren't traitors, they are ignorant, and even that is not their fault. They have been deliberately mislead by legal authorities since the 1800s.
Now the majority has a wrong headed and false understanding of what that term means.
But that is the world we are now living in.
I came in late, and ASSUMED that the discussion was about a black person in the US NOT being considered an NBC.
Since they weren’t considered fully human, they weren’t considered even part of the discussion.
So, any effort to derive an NBC definition based on the treatment of blacks in America is a dead end from the beginning. They were irrelevant to the discussion at that time.
And still you don't name any of these "facts"?
What facts do I not want to hear?
If you mean irrelevant facts, then you are of course right about that.
If the “wall of text” is difficult for you to read, copy it to Wordpad, add more white space and read it a little at a time.
The issue is whether or not it contains anything worth reading. Given that so many people have responded to me, yet no one has told me anything worth knowing, makes me think my initial assessment is correct; That it's a wall of blather that people ought not waste their time reading.
It should be fairly easy to prove me wrong if there is anything in it that is relevant or worthwhile.
Citizenship is a mixture of what the people are doing (which they will do no matter what country claims to be ruling over the territory they live in), and what the government does.
The conventional legal mumbo-jumbo, which is pretty old and has a reasonably consistent history, is that when a new country takes over a territory, it can "naturalize" wither into citizens or nationals, the people who live there.
The founders were naturalized into US citizenship by the act of rebellion, successfully carried out against the prior government who claimed dominion over the territory.
Citizens of the US were defined in the constitution as citizens of the states, and the slaves were not considered citizens. That too is a legal construct.
When the 14th amendment passed, slaves who were living were naturalized, just as the citizens in the colonies who were not British loyalists were naturalized by the revolution.
As far as I can tell, this "legal usage" convention is not contentious at all. Sometimes there is contention over an individual, but the issue there is "citizen or not citizen," so the difference between naturalized and natural born is immaterial. The debate over the meaning of NBC is a tiny twig off the branch of citizenship law.
Back to your point, the ex-slaves where were naturalized by the ratification of the 14th amendment would not be considered natural born; any more than the founders considered those born in the colonies under British rule to be "natural born US citizens" by dint of a later revolution. That "usage" is why the grandfather clause exists in the constitution.
I do agree that this has nothing to do with natural law. Nothing in the law is natural. Everything in the law is dictated by some decider, a judge, a legislator, a bureaucrat.
The Cruzers do not care about our Constitution nor to they care about the rule of law.
No one that believes in our Constitution will vote for the not eligible to serve as POTUS Ted Cruz.
There have been surveys on that. I think somewhere around 25-35% of the people who are asked if a person born in Canada to US parents is eligible, say no. They might vote for him anyway, since eligibility is not required to hold the office.
I don't know if that comports with your sense of "very few." Just saying, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd vote for a naturalized citizen for the office, myself, if they were strong on the borders and strong on personal independence, RKBA, etc. I might even vote for a foreigner for the office, Netanyahu would be great, Thatcher was awesome.
What if King George fathered a child with an American woman in Great Britain. Would the founders have considered that child a natural born citizen of the USA and eligible to serve as POTUS?
I will not copy HarleyLady27’s post for you. The facts are there, read them or don’t.
The term “Natural Law” refers to the laws of Nature and “Nature’s God.” Natural Law is in effect the laws of God. Those are best described in the Declaration of Independence where it states that “all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
When one references “Natural Law” one is not referencing Vittal or International laws and treaties or any laws or traditions of men whatsoever.
It was by statute that slaves were not natural born citizens. Under Natural Law slaves were free men, the creations of God and endowed by their creator with the right to Liberty.
To say that slaves and the children of slaves were not “Natural” born citizens and to use “Natural Law” as the basis for that determination is hypocritical and frankly denigrating to the Creator who endowed these men with Life and Liberty.
Slavery was a man made institution. It was entirely contrary to God’s design and entirely inconsistent with Natural Law in which all men are created equal.
The fact of the matter is that “Natural Born” statutes are all the creation of men, just as borders and nations are all the creations of men.
Slaves were made non-citizens by virtue of the laws of men and they were made citizens by virtue of the laws of men. For purposes of Citizenship, the only Natural Law reference we would have is that the Children of God are Citizens of Heaven.
This appeal to say that somehow a person who is born a citizen under the Statutes of a given country is not a Natural Born Citizen because of some reference to “Natural Law” is simply idiotic. All men are citizens of a country because of the laws of men in effect at the time of their birth. If the Laws in effect at the time of birth make one a citizen of a country at birth, then that person is a Citizen by birth and in effect a natural born citizen.
Natural Law again has nothing whatsoever to do with being a Natural Born Citizen. Nothing — Unless you believe that God sanctioned slavery and that slaves are not fully men.
I could go on. But I’m trying to stay off the election threads. Since this post is more along the lines of legal and religion topics, I will hit “post”.
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.