As buzz mounts, Ted Cruz’s White House eligibility again questioned

Washingon Times ^

[Perdogg]

Ted Cruz’s address at the annual South Carolina Republican Party dinner Friday helped feed growing speculation that the freshman senator from Texas is eyeing a run for the White House in 2016 — and raised yet another round of questions about his eligibility to serve in the Oval Office.

Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to an American-born mother and Cuban-born father, and was a citizen from birth — but that Canadian factor puts him in the company of other past candidates who have had their eligibility questioned because of the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.”

[Jeff Winston]

The Jack@ss also argues that you can be "natural born" to two completely different governments. This nonsense should not warrant a reasoned answer. The only answer it deserves is SHUT UP!

Yes, the only answer you can give is that anyone who disagrees with you is a "jackass" and should be told to "shut up."

This is the standard response to the truth by thugs everywhere. "You'll agree with what we say, or you'll shut up.

And judging by your past statements, I have no doubt that if you had the power to actually act as a thug, you'd do it.

But here's what the FATHER OF OUR CONSTITUTION, JAMES MADISON, had to say about being "natural born" to succeeding governments. And specifically, about being a natural born member of one of the Colonies which became one of the United States:

"I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connection with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which they had for special considerations abolished. Suppose the state of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of government: Surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor."

- James Madison, FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION.

So here Madison says exactly what I just stated: Our political society continued unabated. We merely separated each State from the King. The allegiance to the King was dissolved. The allegiance to the local political society, the Colony that became a State, continued uninterrupted. And every person who had previously been a natural-born member of that AMERICAN political society (previously called a "colony") CONTINUED as a natural-born member of that American political society, which was now called a "State."

So James Madison himself says you're absolutely, totally, full of crap.

[Jeff Winston]

Trolls are those who waste people’s time with false and provocative statements.

As shown by the volumes of evidence from early America presented above, this is a perfect definition of birthers.

Including, obviously, yourself.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Trolls are those who waste people’s time with false and provocative statements.

Funny thing is, I never posted to you, I only responded.

So, who's the troll?

You just pegged yourself.

[DiogenesLamp]

The birther claim that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen is well-documented BS.

Again, Jeff is claiming that HIS BULLSH*T ARGUMENTS = "Well Documented."

What is well Documented is the fact that Jeff doesn't know what he's talking about, and is simply repeating crap that British trained lawyers said. Lawyers who didn't know what they were talking about either.

Ambassador John Armstrong was a Delegate to the Continental Congress in 1787-1788, and Knew exactly what he was talking about. Who does Jeff have? Rawle.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then you quote part of the Happersett decision to support your position. I merely pointed out that if anything the Happersett decision proves you wrong; that Justice Waitte said that there can be more than one road to NBC status, and he wasn't going to say if that was right or wrong. Did I miss anything?

Yes you did. You missed the part where 7 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and during a discussion explicitly ABOUT the 14th Amendment, Justice Waite said:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

This is a tacit admission that the 14th AMENDMENT "does NOT SAY who shall be natural-born citizens."

[SvenMagnussen]

“Aliens (he is not) Citizen (can include immigrants), and the smaller subset of citizen “Natural Born”.”

Statutory citizens, like Cruz and McCain, do not become U.S. Citizens until they apply for U.S. Citizenship. Their application for U.S. Citizenship, with accompying fee and supporting documentation, will be accepted and they will be issued a Certificate of Citizenship if their application is free of fraud.

Once their Certificate of Citizenship is issued, the certificate can be withdrawn or terminated due to fraud. It’s not likely, but Cruz and McCain could lose their U.S. Citizenship and have to re-apply for it if fraud is found in their applications. Consequently, they cannot be NBC because their U.S. Citizenship can be withdrawn or terminated without their consent.

[allmendream]

McCain never had to apply for U.S. citizenship any more or less than any other U.S. citizen at birth.

He was a U.S. citizen through the natural act of being born.

Why don’t you just go back to making incredible claims without any evidence that 0bama naturalized in whatever year you pulled forth from your r#ctum.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yet, nobody raised the question once Obama announced for the Presidency. Not a single politician (most of whom are lawyers), not a single lawyer, not a single jurist, not a single political official of any stripe. In other words, among the thousands and thousands of people who would've a.) been in a position to know he wasn't eligible and b.) had a stake in the election results, nary a soul bothered to raise a peep.

If Happersett was operative, how could that be?

Because the entire legal system is tainted with bad precedent, and/or bad interpretation of precedent, and they are unaware of it. They do not know that their understanding is wrong, nor do they know why it is wrong. They simply swallow what the momma bird lawyers have fed them when they were little bird lawyer wannabees.

A correct understanding requires you to start at the origin of the term in American law, and work your way forward from there. Suffice it to say, all the sources cited in support of "Anchor Baby" law don't trace back to delegates or legislators who ratified the US Constitution, they seem only to trace back to Lawyers trained in British law.

The disconnect happened back in the early 1800s.

[SvenMagnussen]

“McCain never had to apply for U.S. citizenship any more or less than any other U.S. citizen at birth.”

Part of the problem with eligibility arguments is that some of us are ignorant of the facts.

McCain and Cruz have birth certificates issued to them from foreign entities in foreign countries. To establish U.S. Citizenship, they or their parents had to apply for U.S. Citizenship through the U.S. State Department, provide supporting documentation and pay a fee.

Anyone born outside of the of the U.S with one or two U.S. parents does not automatically become a U.S. Citizen. A Certificate of Citizenship will be issued if and only if it is applied for with supporting documents. If fraud if found in the application or supporing documents, even after the Certificate of Citizenship has been issued, then the applicant can lose their U.S. Citizenship without their consent and be forced to re-apply or naturalize.

[DiogenesLamp]

We were told in the military if our children were born while deployed overseas, they would be considered NBC.

If the principle of "natural born citizen" is based on Vattel's Law of Nations, then this is exactly correct. See below.

If the principle of "natural born citizen" is based on English Common Law, then your children are NOT natural born citizens. Now Jeff is going to come along and say "Yes they are!" and is going to argue that English Common law does make subjects of children born abroad. (Which if true, ought to have made all the Children of British Citizens born in the USA into British Subjects, but paradoxes don't bother Jeff.)

Jeff will be wrong no matter what he says. For one, it isn't English Common law which would be in effect, but a Positive law passed by an act of Parliament which made the Children of Englishmen born abroad into "natural born subjects." (Again, begging the question as to how the Children of British subjects born in America are not British Subjects.)

The point is, British Common law doesn't account for it no matter how you slice it. Vattel's Principles of natural law account for it perfectly.

[allmendream]

The U.S. State Department is a foreign entity in a foreign nation?

I just applied for my daughter’s birth certificate from the local county office - it too would be rejected if there was any fraud found in the supporting documents.

[allmendream]

“how the Children of British subjects born in America are not British Subjects”?

According to English law they WERE. England thought that Americans were legally English until 1815. Between the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 and the end of the war of 1812 - in 1815 - Presidents Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln and Johnson were all born.

Were none of these U.S. Presidents qualified because England considered them English according to English law?

[DiogenesLamp]

I shudder to think how many posts there have been on this subject, arguing for and against. The fact is that your position is no more definitive than those who argue that Cruz is a natural born citizen because the Supreme Court had never ruled on the matter.

The Supreme Court DID rule on the matter of Ted Cruz's citizenship in the guise of Aldo Mario Bellei. He and Ted Cruz share the exact same circumstance of birth. They were both born in foreign countries to American mothers and foreign fathers.

The Supreme court ruled that Bellei could be stripped of his citizenship because he did not comply with the requirements of the law which granted it; The Citizenship act of 1934. (and subsequent modifications thereof.)

How can you argue that someone who could have been stripped of citizenship is the same thing as a "natural born citizen"?

[DiogenesLamp]

No, to call Rubio an “anchor baby” is getting pretty racist. An “anchor baby” would not be nBC since the parents would be here illegally. Rubio parents were here legal and legal residents.

This is indeed, strictly different from an "Anchor Baby." It definitely grants 14th amendment citizenship according to "Wong Kim Ark" but the question remains.

Does a "natural citizen" require the 14th amendment to BE a citizen? No.

[DiogenesLamp]

Because "natural born" was a legal term, and all of the Framers and anyone else who had studied law knew what it meant.

I have noticed that all the ones who studied Vattel have a different take on the definition to all the ones who studied English law. You are right, "natural born" *IS* a legal term, but the source of it is the Principles of Natural law, and not English Common law.

English common law forbids independence. The Revolution was a rejection of English Rule, and this is the most important aspect of it. A Rejection of the notion that you owe allegiance to a King simply because you were born on his land.

Again, Jeff wants to invoke law that binds us to Feudal rule. He says it's a custom or something.

[okie01]

The disconnect happened back in the early 1800s.

In other words, either:

a. The birther movement is right...and everybody else is wrong, including all those people whose business it is to know what's in the Constitution. Or...

b. Happersett never has been recognized as the definitive last word on "natural-born citizen" and the whole movement has been built on a false premise.

So, which is it?

[Jeff Winston]

Funny thing is, I never posted to you, I only responded.

So, who's the troll?

Before I ever commented in this thread, you posted false BS in posts 51, 58, 71, 104, 110, 115, and 117. And arguably elsewhere.

So who's the troll? You are.

[DiogenesLamp]

I consistently hold that McCain was a “natural born citizen.”

[allmendream]

Would that be contingent upon Panama not offering anyone born in Panama citizenship at birth - or would such a Panamanian law be completely irrelevant to his status as a natural born citizen of the USA?

[Nero Germanicus]

As did Virginia Minor’s appeal, unanimously.