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]

You're welcome.

It’s a strange and ironic thing that birthers have found themselves in direct opposition to our Founding Fathers, but they certainly have.

I applaud their opposition to the current train-wreck of a President. But throwing our Constitution, our history, and our laws under the bus, and calling that heritage "horse sh*t," is not the way to oppose him.

Neither is accusing conservatives who stand up for our Constitution, our history and our laws of being "Obama supporters," "liberals," "Fogblowers" and "trolls."

[allmendream]

What other recourse do they have?

Really.

If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

[mnehring]

Go ahead and remove me from your ping list to. While I can’t say I disagree with your assessments, to be frank, the entire issue has gotten so tainted and we are so long past the point of impact, anything further is just a futile activity that gets all of us at each other’s throats over legal nuances that are in some ways, uncharted territories.

Rationally we also know that absolutely nothing will happen. It is like fighting over what to do if aliens invade.

[DiogenesLamp]

Short of Constitutional clarity, should not a Court follow Common-law that gives us that NBC is conveyed to those born of a USA citizen, beyond the borders, ...

Following "Common Law" is how we got into this mess. Common law is based on the feudal notion that someone born on the King's land owes servitude to the king. It is completely incompatible with American principles of independence, and basing our citizenship laws on it is stupid.

What part of common law allows departure from the allegiance of the King? It adamantly forbids it! It allows burning, dunking, drawing and quartering as punishment, it requires the state to recognize the authority of the Anglican Church, It allowed Debtor Prisons and "corruption of blood" and Primogeniture, and a whole host of other principles and concepts in direct contradiction to American principles of law and Justice.

We kept the parts that were benevolent and useful in our newly founded country, and we rejected the parts which were incompatible.

James Madison:

The great mass of suits in every State lie between Citizen & Citizen, and relate to matters not of federal cognizance. . . . What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.

considering Cruz Mother made certain no dual citizenship by registering him for USA Passport and returning him to reside in USA as proscribed?

Ted Cruz *IS* a dual citizen. He could go live in Canada right now and be a Canadian without being naturalized. He can fight for Canada against us and not be tried as a traitor if captured. There is a REASON why "natural citizens" cannot be "dual citizens." A President should have loyalty and allegiance to only one nation, and one nation alone.

[DiogenesLamp]

Is this what it's come down to? That birthers are free to publicly call the writings of our Founding Fathers and other early legal experts, and our long-standing laws, "horse sh*t" and "crap?"

Nope, we are calling *YOU* Horse sh*t for intentionally misrepresenting their words and intent so as to falsely appear to agree with your stupid theory.

Even with your response, you attempt to falsely mislead people into thinking this is a dispute with the founders, when in fact it is a dispute with *YOU*!

Jim, can I ask: Why is this being tolerated here at FreeRepublic? I simply don't understand.

As Jim Robinson lives in California, I suspect he is not very sympathetic to your stupid theory that he should have to live with the "Anchor baby" consequences of it. YOU are helping Foreigners over run us!!!!! You have become an enabler of the destruction of our Nation.

[DiogenesLamp]

I was born abroad to a British citizen, and I am considered a British citizen myself, although I have not at any time permanently resided in that country.

It stops at one generation, though. My children are not British citizens and cannot easily become so unless they reside in the UK for at least three years before turning 18.

It is my understanding that this manifestation of Jus Sanguinus law was enacted by Parliament sometime back in the 1500s. It isn't part of "Common Law" but is instead an application of positive law.

[Jeff Winston]

Nope, we are calling *YOU* Horse sh*t for intentionally misrepresenting their words and intent so as to falsely appear to agree with your stupid theory.

I've accurately represented every single word. You can't point out one single sentence, one single word that I've misrepresented in any way.

That being the case, it's THEIR words and THEIR intent that you are defaming and calling "horse sh*t."

Of course, along the way, you also defame every conservative that stands up here for those words our Founding Generation spoke.

As Jim Robinson lives in California, I suspect he is not very sympathetic to your stupid theory that he should have to live with the "Anchor baby" consequences of it. YOU are helping Foreigners over run us!!!!! You have become an enabler of the destruction of our Nation.

Once again (as is your practice) you spin a bunch of BS about those who oppose your trashing of our Constitution and laws.

I've said elsewhere that I believe there's at least some room in the law to challenge birth tourism (which is certainly a problem but which, by the way, represents something less than 1/5th of 1% of births in the United States). And I CERTAINLY believe that giving citizenship to the children of illegal aliens (which is a FAR, FAR bigger issue) is not within the spirit of the historical rule of citizenship, which required aliens to be legally present. As I have said before, I think Congress could certainly pass a law denying US citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, and see whether the courts will uphold it.

I could be wrong about this, but I believe that Jim Robinson regards our Constitution as sacred, as do I and many others at this site. I find it offensive that you and others continually trash and misrepresent both our Constitution and the words of our Founding Fathers, our laws, and our Founding Generation.

[okie01]

You say you absolutely know what the answer is. The truth has somehow been revealed to you.

I'm saying I don't know what the answer is. Because it's a legal question...and it's never been decided in court. Fact is, Chief Justice Waite's musings are even less binding than Chief Justice Taney's mistaken decisions.

At the same time, I recognize what has become common judgment and practice for going on 150 years -- which accepts U.S. citizenship-at-birth as tantamount to natural-born citizenship.

As a result, thousands of people who should've known better -- according to some -- were not moved to put up one serious squawk about Obama's eligibility...even though the nationality of his father was broadly known (and admitted).

There were serious questions about his place of birth, for good reason. But nobody seriously questioned his status as a "natural-born citizen" -- if he had, in fact, been born in Hawaii.

Yet, somehow the issue was eventually diverted solely into the natural-born citizen issue -- an issue which, it must be noted, presumes he was born in Hawaii!

Under the circumstances, I believe you're wasting your time and your energy. But it is, after all, your time and your energy -- so you're free to waste it however you wish.

Have at it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your protestations are falling on deaf ears. I don’t even read anything you write anymore unless it is short.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm saying I don't know what the answer is.

An honest admission. We are making progress.

Chief Justice Waite's musings are even less binding than Chief Justice Taney's mistaken decisions.

Chief Justice Taney's decisions are biding? Really? So how is it that you determine that Chief Justice Taney's made a mistake, and Associate Justice Gray did not? I thought most of you court worshipers believed in Supremeos uber alles?

The very concession that the Supreme Court could make a mistake is damaging to your case, because it is the very basis for my argument.

At the same time, I recognize what has become common judgment and practice for going on 150 years

150 years you say? One of your buddies said it was only 115 years. Let's see, 2013-150 = 1863. Are you saying the civil war decided citizenship? I'm not following your thinking on this.

-- which accepts U.S. citizenship-at-birth as tantamount to natural-born citizenship.

Which if your theory was true, would have precluded the need for the 14th amendment. Why did they create the 14th amendment again?

As a result, thousands of people who should've known better -- according to some -- were not moved to put up one serious squawk about Obama's eligibility...even though the nationality of his father was broadly known (and admitted).

There were serious questions about his place of birth, for good reason. But nobody seriously questioned his status as a "natural-born citizen" -- if he had, in fact, been born in Hawaii.

Do I understand you correctly? One the one hand you are saying thousands of people should have known about his "natural born citizen" status, and on the other you say there are serious questions about his place of birth, overlooking the presumption that "thousands of people should have known better."

How do you try to have it both ways? My theory simply invokes ignorance on the part of State officials required to certify a candidate as eligible. They were ignorant of the need to verify his Hawaiian Birth Records, and they were also ignorant of the fact that they didn't understand what "natural citizen" means.

I'd say that how many thousand or so people didn't do something is not proof of anything. "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."

Yet, somehow the issue was eventually diverted solely into the natural-born citizen issue -- an issue which, it must be noted, presumes he was born in Hawaii!

It is multifaceted. I do not know if he was born in Hawaii or not. I have seen no proof, and as I am constantly telling "Nero Germanicus" no one else has seen any "proof" either.

[Nero Germanicus]

That’s the current law of the land. I thought that posting it would be helpful for this discussion. I honestly posted the relevant section in its entirety, as it is likely to be applied in any court challenge to Senator Cruz.

The Founding Fathers made provision for any and all of their original thinking to be altered by Constitutional Amendment. They never intended for what they developed to be set in stone forever. They were smart enough to make it difficult to amend the Constitution but not impossible. The current Immigration and Naturalization Act has been held to be Constitutional under the provisions of the Citizenship Clause of the14th Amendment.

It is indeed ironic that in 2016, should Ted Cruz run for president, the first shot at determining his eligibility will belong to Secretary of State John Kerry.

[exit82]

Of the three categories of citizen mentioned in the Constitution, any of the three may be a Senator. A non citizen cannot be a Senator. Only a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption can be President. A naturalized citizen or a non citizen cannot be President

All that you stated is elementary and obvious from the Constitution, What you have not answered, is what makes the natural born citizen " natural born" as opposed to just a "citizen". A natural born citizen is eligible to be a President, a Senator, or a Representative. But a "citizen" can only be a Senator or a Representative.

What is the difference in qualifications between the two?

[allmendream]

One was born with natural allegiance and the other had to be naturalized into a condition of allegiance.

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s the current law of the land.

But it was not the law until it was MADE the law. Natural citizens existed PRIOR to the law, therefore the law is unnecessary to their existence. If the existence of "natural citizens" is not dependent upon this law, then how can those whose existence *IS* dependent upon the law be the same?

The Founding Fathers made provision for any and all of their original thinking to be altered by Constitutional Amendment.

Absolutely. But I know of no constitutional Amendment repealing Article II, or redefining the term "natural born citizen." It is significant that the authors of the 14th amendment intentionally excluded these words when they had the chance to add them. (As did Wong Kim Ark.)

[exit82]

One was born with natural allegiance and the other had to be naturalized into a condition of allegiance.OK, I can agree with that.

Now, what factors create, at birth, natural allegiance to this country?

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry. Based on a previous thread, I thought you would be interested.

Desperate to peddle your horse sauce? Nobody wants to hear it Jeff.

[DiogenesLamp]

On one side, we have the Father of our Constitution. On the other, a Swiss writer who died when we were still subjects of the king. The choice is pretty clear to me.

"Bertrand Russell--- The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

If you are "certain", then you haven't bothered looking at the contrary evidence.

[DiogenesLamp]

There isn't a single living legal expert who thinks that Cruz is not eligible to be President.

And here you come with comic relief.

Yup, the sheep are a majority.

[allmendream]

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” James Madison

[DiogenesLamp]

I applaud their opposition to the current train-wreck of a President. But throwing our Constitution, our history, and our laws under the bus,

They aren't OUR laws. Don't you get it? They are BRITISH Laws, meant to bond us to servitude. (That's what the word "SUBJECT" means.) Jus Soli is FEUDAL. American Independence is based on a REJECTION of Feudal Law.

The only reason people have been buying this British Common law Horse sh*t is because so many early lawyers were trained in British law, and have erroneously claimed such as the foundation of our Constitutional law.

and calling that heritage "horse sh*t," is not the way to oppose him.

No, Jeff, we aren't calling that heritage "horse sh*t" we are calling your incorrect representation of it "horse sh*t." Stop substituting "Jeff Speak" for "the founders." Nobody is buying it.

Marrying Monarchical decrees with American Law is not in the best interest of the Nation. It has caused a massive mess already, the damage of which I doubt you have a clue. Anchor Babies, Birth Tourism, and the current President being mere examples of the mess it has caused. Again, believing your theory requires STUPID FOUNDERS.

The founders were not stupid.