Texas Republican Sen. Cruz eligible to be president should he decide to run

What Certificate of Loss of Nationality? The one you mention repeatedly yet never provide any evidence to support its existence? That one?

I already said that in my opinion, it makes no sense at all if the meaning of natural born citizen includes children of foreign citizen parents. and that is wherever they were born.

You are entitled to your opinion. The Founders and Framers and their generation, and virtually all legal experts, historically and now, disagree with you.

Many of the quotes you posted were general themes and not directly intended to define or even clarify the meaning of natural born citizen.

Strictly speaking, that's true. But whether they were all directly intended to clarify the meaning of natural born citizen or not, they do.

When Alexander Hamilton says that the definitions of terms used in the Constitution are to be found in the common law, that tells us the meaning of "natural born," like the meaning of "treason," is probably going to be found in the common law. It was the only place the term occurred anyway - it certainly didn't occur in Vattel or in any English translation of Vattel until 10 years after the Constitution was written - but Hamilton's words reinforce that.

When Madison tells us that there are two kinds of allegiance that make for citizenship, parentage and place of birth, and that place of birth is "the most certain," and "what applies in the United States," that says our major rule for citizenship was jus soli. It also says that jus soli was enough. It also implies that the children born abroad of US citizens were probably citizens, too. Which turns out to be exactly the case.

When Jefferson writes a law for Virginia that is straight jus soli, it implies that jus soli was the rule.

When 40% of the Signers of the Constitution say that children born to US citizens abroad are "to be considered as natural born citizens," it says they regarded those people as eligible to the Presidency as well. And THAT says NO, it DIDN'T require birth on US soil plus two citizen parents.

When James Bayard writes an exposition of the Constitution noting that "natural born citizen" really just means "citizen by birth," and Chief Justice John Marshall writes him correcting him on roads, and then says the rest of the book is accurate, that very strongly implies that Marshall agreed that anyone who was a citizen by birth was a "natural born citizen."

When legal expert, US District Attorney, friend of Washington and Franklin, and author of prominent work on the Constitution William Rawle says that every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity, that says... well, that's pretty obvious, isn't it?

Also, as I read them, many of the quotes supported my issues more than yours.

Bull****.

If that were true, you would be able to point that out, and explain it, without resorting to fallacious arguments.

But when birthers argue, they invariably resort to fallacious arguments. I've documented around 40 of them, which I intend to eventually publish all in one place.

But I am not going to grapple with you in the mud anymore.

Of course you aren't. Because historically and legally, you have no argument, and (unlike some) you seem to be smart enough to understand it's a losing battle.

I am not big on quotes. I am big on principles and common sense.

Principles are great. Common sense, most of the time, is good as well.

But if you want to know what someone did or said historically, you don't get there by saying, "Gee. This is what I would do. So this is what the Founders must have done."

And when you want to know what the law is, you go and find out what the law is. You don't say, "I would mandate that everybody must keep a firearm in their home, so that's what the law is," or "I would ban all guns, so that's what the law is."

This is the fundamental mistake of the birthers. They imagine that they can dictate what the Founding Fathers did by theory.

"Hey, here's a good theory. It's a theory I like. Therefore, this is what the Founding Fathers did. And anyone who disagrees with my pronouncement is a liar, and a troll, and a liberal, and a con man and a cad."

You don't determine what the Founding Fathers did by what you imagine they "would" have done.

You determine what the Founding Fathers did by going to the historical record and finding out... what they actually DID.

The birther tag is used often to trivialize and suppress arguments of those on our side. It is very narrow and does not invite discussion of aspects outside the birthplace of Obummer. You calling me a birther as though it helps your argument only illuminates my suspicions regarding your agenda.

Cry me a river.

I and others who have posted the truth have been falsely called liars, trolls, idiots, morons, Obama supporters, paid shills, and worse every single day of the discussion.

By birthers.

"Birther" itself isn't much of a pejorative. It's a pretty good description.

But if birthers are the object of contempt, it's because they've thoroughly earned it. First, by refusing to listen to any reason or any evidence that goes against their precious idiotic claim. Second, by acting like jerks from day one. Third, by making literally dozens of fallacious arguments. Fourth, by failing to recognize that their cause was lost literally YEARS ago.

Tell us Mr Winston... Are you an Obama supporter?

No. And frankly if I were, I would probably stand aside and laugh my butt off and just let the birthers make conservatives look bad.

By the way, I'm sure you understand your questions are insulting. Having dealt with you a little bit more now, I'm pretty sure they were intended to be.

Did you vote for him? Both Times?

Of course not, genius. I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher.

Do you think he is doing a good Job?

What kind of idiot question is that?

See, here's one of the places where birthers ride the rails of complete nutjob idiocy.

They imagine that if you don't think and propagandize that Obama is Constitutionally barred from being President, then by G** you must be some kind of Obama supporter.

He's probably the crappiest President in my lifetime. That still doesn't mean that the Founders ever said you had to have birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

Because they flat-out didn't.

Is the Constitution the fundamental law of the land, or isn't it?

You don't just throw the Constitution out the window, and mangle it, and trample on it, and call those who defend it "liars," just because you happened to get a crappy President.

I wish you did have good news but good news without reality is not really news at all.

Do you know what I think?

I think you weren't being quite honest when you said you wished Cruz were eligible.

Either that, or you are REALLY deceived by all the crap that birthers have posted.

If it's the latter, then enough reading and thinking will sort you out.

If it's the former, then you'll just go on falsely pretending that you're really interested in the truth, when you aren't.

As I said, the Constitution is more important to me than political expediency.

If that were true, and if you understood the history and the law, you would be joining me in defending it.

Which constitutional authorities have been queried regarding Senator Cruz and what was their response?

Every media report on whether there might be an eligibility issue regarding Cruz, or on birthers turning their attention to him, mentions some authority. Obviously, James Bayard (and almost certainly, Chief Justice John Marshall, who was in perhaps the best position of anybody to know the legal meaning of "natural born citizen") said that people like Cruz are eligible.

And whenever any REAL authority in history has commented on the matter, the opinion has been pretty much unanimous.

You don't have to comment specifically on Ted Cruz. If someone says that being a "citizen by birth" is sufficient, then that's Cruz.

Chief Justice John Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) stated, “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” “Citizen,” “naturalization” and “natural born Citizen” are ALL in the Original, unamended Constitution; therefore, none can mean the same thing.

And they don't. Citizens are either people who are born citizens - those are "natural born citizens" - or they are people who become citizens after being born a citizen of somewhere else. Those are "naturalized" citizens.

So citizens include both natural born and naturalized citizens.

It's pretty simple. It's not that hard.

How do you explain why the founders made the distinct reference to "natural born" in the case of the President but did not in the case of Congress?

Because they wanted the President to be someone who had been born a citizen, rather than being someone who was NOT born a citizen of the United States.

They could have chosen to say Wong was a natural born citizen, they chose not to.

In the final summation, courts answer the question asked of them. The question was, "Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen?" So they said yes, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen.

If Wong had been running for President, or if they had been asked, "Is Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen," then they would've said he was a natural born citizen.

All of the core reasoning was that he was a natural born citizen. Therefore, yes, the question asked of the court could be answered in the affirmative: Wong Kim Ark was a citizen.

And it's not just the final proclamation that is precedent. All of the core reasoning used to reach it, which was ALL about who was and was not a natural born citizen, is precedent as well, and binding on all future courts until and unless overturned by the Supremes.

This is fundamental law. Doesn't take a genius to understand it.

And anyone who refuses to understand it, or acknowledge it... well, let's just say that such a person isn't the brightest bulb in the box.

“What Certificate of Loss of Nationality? The one you mention repeatedly yet never provide any evidence to support its existence? That one?”

Yes.

Let’s be FRiends, Ray. We should get to know each other. I’ll tell you something interesting about me and then you post something interesting about yourself.

I used to work for the IRS in Cininnati. I personally know many of the actors involved in the targeting of tax exempt filings of conservative groups currently in the news. It would be unethical of me to comment publicly on the work that I did for the IRS, but I’m not surprised by this story unfolding. I am surprised it took this long to be made public.

Did you know a copy of every CLN issued by SoS is provided to the IRS? It’s a shame those records are protected by the Privacy Act. A CLN cannot be published without expressed written consent of the renunciant or a Court order.

Tell me about yourself, Ray.

“Yep and I guess we would have to all sacrifice”

I guess you are willing to sacrifice George Washington as well. Wasn’t one of his grand parents born in England?

You’re avoiding Justice Gray’s lengthy cite of Minor v. Happersett again.

I suppose you do so because Minor is not at all supportive of your contention, since Minor clearly negates any attempt to equate 14th Amendment citizens with natural born citizens.

Wong Kim Ark was deemed a citizen under the 14th Amendment, after suing due to being denied reentry into the US because he did not possess citizenship under the auspices of treaty between the US and China.

An attempt to sue for suffrage as a 14th Amendment citizen was denied Virginia Minor because she was a natural born citizen whose citizenship had never been at question and no one had attempted to deny citizenship to her.

Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark was not.

Jeff Winston, you've argued at length and continue to do so via USSC opinions of which you have no understanding. Wong Kim Ark was being denied citizenship by virtue of a treaty with China. Chinese in the US were to be excluded at the behest of the Chinese. Wong Kim Ark sued because he was denied reentry into the US due to... blah, blah, blah

I understand all of that perfectly, Mr. Genius. Believe me, I understand that, and a lot more. I've read US v. Wong Kim Ark multiple times. I've read the background on US v. Wong Kim Ark. I've read about the life of Wong Kim Ark. I've read the dissent in US v. Wong Kim Ark. Multiple times. I've read the papers the government filed to contest the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark. I've read what others have written on US v. Wong Kim Ark.

And I've now read probably every damn argument that every stupid birther has ever made to try and shoot down US v. Wong Kim Ark.

Horace Gray essentially abrogated that treaty by applying the 14th Amendment in a way that was then novel, to find that wong Kim Ark was a citizen via operation of that Amendment.

No, he didn't. Nothing in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty or the 1880 Angell Treaty that followed it was "abrogated" by US v. Wong Kim Ark.

The Chinese Exclusion Act, which came in 1882, provided "That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship."

He didn't even abrogate that. Wong Kim Ark wasn't naturalized. He was born a US citizen.

And he didn't "apply the 14th Amendment in a way that was then novel."

It's true that the 14th wasn't passed to ensure the citizenship of Chinese people born in the United States. It was passed for the purpose of ensuring the citizenship and rights of BLACK people who were born in the United States.

But the Senators and Representatives who wrote the 14th did so KNOWING FULL WELL that the children of Chinese people, born here, were going to be recognized as natural born citizens as well.

Heck, there was even a DISCUSSION of the Chinese people in California, with the member of Congress from California saying "don't worry about us, it's fine with California if we recognize that US-born Chinese people are citizens."

As for any other part of it: The Wong Court correctly said that the 14th Amendment AFFIRMED THE ANCIENT RULE OF CITIZENSHIP THAT HAD ALWAYS EXISTED IN THE UNITED STATES.

It just made sure it was applied EQUALLY to members of ALL races, not just to people of white, European ethnicity.

So, from Minor, we see that natural born citizens and 14th Amendment citizens are not synonymous. 14th Amendment citizens can be naturalized.

Okay. But those 14th Amendment citizens who are BORN citizens, rather than being NATURALIZED, are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

And you can't produce a single authority who ever said otherwise.

And yet here you are, again (and again), arguing that Wong Kim Ark was magically transformed into a natural born citizen when he was not even born a citizen at all under the auspices of a treaty with China that excluded him from being under the jurisdiction of the US at birth.

Nothing in either the original treaty, or its 1880 revision, said that children born here weren't US citizens, genius.

None of these arguments you're making apply to the eligibility or the lack of it, of Ted Cruz, either. They apply to known or presumed weaknesses in any eligibility claims made on behalf of Barack Obama.

Obviously you either haven't read what I've written, or you choose to simply ignore it, as I've stated multiple times in this thread alone that Cruz is eligible. In another thread I've gone into detail as to exactly why he's eligible.

Do you realize yet, that you really don't belong here, politically?

Why? Is this a site for people who want to ignore and trample on the Constitution?

That wasn't my impression.

Thanks for the info, Sven.

If you have actual documentation that Obama ever lost his citizenship, it would be a good time to produce it. Otherwise... it’s all academic.

You’re avoiding Justice Gray’s lengthy cite of Minor v. Happersett again.

Gray cited Minor for the specific purpose of saying that the Minor Court was not committed to the idea that children of aliens were "excluded from the operation of the 14th Amendment."

In other words, he cited Minor to say the Minor Court didn't necessarily think children born here of alien parents WEREN'T born citizens.

I suppose you do so because Minor is not at all supportive of your contention, since Minor clearly negates any attempt to equate 14th Amendment citizens with natural born citizens.

I've already noted 14th Amendment citizens are of two kinds: Natural born, and naturalized.

Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark was not.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States says you're wrong.

Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case::

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"

Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:

The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:

"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN."

That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.

First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."

Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."

And they also told us that the sovereign, or KING has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well, when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.

All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.

It's all very straightforward. An elementary school child could understand it.

This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:

THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN.

Wong Kim Ark was not the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state. He was not the child of an alien enemy in hostile occupation.

It is absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR that Wong Kim Ark fulfilled the rule that the Supreme Court said applied here, and that had ALWAYS applied here.

This is why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President. Because it is crystal clear.

He didn't even abrogate that. Wong Kim Ark wasn't naturalized. He was born a US citizen.

Under the Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868, Wong Kim Ark was at birth in 1873 a subject of the Emperor of China. He was as a result rightly regarded then and right up until the novel judicial stylings of Horace Gray to be an alien, a foreigner. Reentry documents issued by China were required for such individuals to resume any residence in the US. By treaty.

You may not like the law or the implications of it, but it was indeed law. You may want to dismiss a treaty as not being law, but I assure you, it was. Wong Kim Ark sued for citizenship and the citizenship he possessed, under a then-novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment alone, was acquired via judicial fiat in abrogation of international treaty.

Under the Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868, Wong Kim Ark was at birth in 1873 a subject of the Emperor of China... blah, blah, blah... judicial fiat in abrogation of international treaty.

Cite the provision that says so. There is none.

Like all debating birthers, you're full of cr*p.

The Burlingame Treaty only said, "But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States."

Wong Kim Ark wasn't naturalized. He was BORN in the United States, and like all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, he was a natural born citizen.

Call it an omission if you like, but the Burlingame Treaty did not address the status of persons born in the United States to Chinese parents.

So once again, like all debating birthers, you can't back up what you're saying.

Because if you only made statements that can actually be backed up, you wouldn't BE a debating birther in the first place.

That’s your legal theory.
Judges, however, have seen it differently from you.

Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012

Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings:: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

Voeltz v Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born int he United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV

[Army Captain Connie Rhodes refused to deploy to Iraq until Obama proved his eligibility to be Commander in Chief]
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0

Born in a foreign country to a foreign father Cruz is a citizen by naturalization statute, ie a naturalized citizen. Take away statute and poof, no more citizenship.

Congressional authority respecting citizenship extends to naturalization only.

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4.

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

“Citizen,” “naturalization” and “natural born Citizen” are ALL in the Original, unamended Constitution; therefore, none can mean the same thing.

Marbury v Madison:
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

A citizen by statute can not be a natural born citizen.

As others have pointed out to you Gray abrogated treaties. Treaties are part of the supreme law of the land.

U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Do note that the common law of England is not included, nor are the constitution or laws of any state. (So don't bother posting state statutes, rulings, etc, eg Chancellor Sandford)

Aside from abrogating treaties, Gray applies the "common law" of England. England's common law is not the supreme law, but foreign law.

Madison letter to Washington October 18, 1787
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.”

Madison called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining terms in the Constitution.

Aside from abrogating treaties and applying English common law, Gray deliberately misinterprets the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 14th Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment explained the jurisdiction clause:

Rep. Bingham:
The Fourteenth Amendment is "simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

Sen. Trumbull:
"'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Sen. Williams:
Senator during the drafting of Amend. XIV, later as US Attorney General ruled the word "jurisdiction" under Amend. XIV "must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment." "Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else."

The jurisdiction clause is specifically stated to be political allegiance, not territorial bounds.

Ignoring legislative history Gray "presumes" the intent of the jurisdiction clause:

The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment make clear that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is political and not geographic bounds, specifically stating "allegiance". Gray ignores their intent conflating "jurisdiction" in the first sentence with the last. The first sentence confers citizenship, the last sentence applies law. These are entirely different matters, in the first instance political and in the last instance geographical.

Having misconstrued the jurisdiction clause as territorial Gray then proceeds to examine the common law of England.

To lend a sheen of legitimacy Gray cites State v. Manuel:

The term "citizen" as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

State v. Manuel is an 1838 case before the North Carolina Supreme Court. The following is the first portion of the paragraph containing the cited sentence:

It has been said that before our Revolution, free persons of colour did not exercise the right of voting for members of the colonial legislature. How this may hvae been, it would be difficult at this time to ascertain. It is certain however that very few, if any, could have claimed the right of suffrage, for a reason of a very different character than the one supposed. The principle of freehold suffrage seems to have been brought over from England with the first colonists, and to have been preserved almost invariably in the colony ever afterwards. In the act of 1743, ch. 1, (Swan's Revisal, 171,) it will be seen that a freehold of fifty acres was necessary to entitle the inhabitant of a county to vote, and by the act of 2d Sept. of 1746, ch. 1, Ibid. 223, the freeholders only of the respective towns of Edenton, Bath, Newbern and Wilmington were declared entitled to vote for members of the Colonial Legislature. The very Congress which framed our constitution, was chosen by freeholders. That constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of 21, and paid a public tax; and it is a matter of universal notoriety that under it, free persons without regard to colour, claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken from free men of colour a few years since by our amended constitution. But surely the possession of political power is not essential to constitute a citizen. If it be, then women, minors, and persons who have not paid public taxes are not citizens - and free white men who have paid public taxes and arrived at full age, but hove not a freehold of fifty acres, inasmuch as they may vote for one branch and cannot vote for the other branch of our legislature, would be in an intermediate state, a sort of hybrids between citizens and not-citizens. The term "citizen" as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State." Considering therefore the defendant as having a right to the protection of the clauses in the constitution and declaration of rights on which he relies, we proceed to the examination of the alleged repugnancy between these and the act of 1831. The 39th section of the constitution is in these words: "The person of a debtor, where there is not a strong presumption of fraud, shall not be continued in prison after delivering up bona fide all his estate, real and personal for the use of his creditors in such manner as shall be hereafter regulated by law." ....

It is quite clear that Judge Gaston's references to "our law" and "our constitution" are references to the statutes and Constitution of North Carolina. As North Carolina has a reception statute the cited sentence is true in North Carolina. The same can not be said for the federal government which does not incorporate common law via Constitution, reception statute, or other method. The cited sentence is inapplicable to the federal government.

Gray's cite of Manuel to justify use of English common law is dishonest.

Gray's use of English common law is inappropriate:

Jefferson letter to Edmund Randolph, August 18, 1799:
Of all the doctrines which have ever been broached by the federal government, the novel one, of the common law being in force and cognizable as an existing law in their courts, is to me the most formidable. All their other assumptions of un-given powers have been in the detail. The bank law, the treaty doctrine, the sedition act, alien act, the undertaking to change the State laws of evidence in the State courts by certain parts of the stamp act, &c. &c. have been solitary, unconsequential, timid things, in comparison with the audacious, barefaced and sweeping pretension to a system of law for the United States, without the adoption of their legislature, and so infinitively beyond their power to adopt.

Gray ignored legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment and interpreted the intent of the jurisdiction clause territorially rather than politically ignoring the specifically stated intent of its Framers.

He arrogated to himself a system of law “infinitively beyond [his] power to adopt” and erected himself into a legislator deciding "what parts of the common law would, and what would not, be properly applicable to the circumstances of the United States" (Madison letter to Jefferson, Jan 18, 1800).

The holding is binding on lower courts: the SINGLE question of whether Wong was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was answered in the affirmative.

The rationale when erroneous is dicta. It has little value as precedent or guidance and is not binding on lower courts.

Neither Amend. XIV nor WKA touch Art. II’s eligibility requirements.

Your conflating citizen, naturalized citizen, and natural born citizen is absurd, such construction is inadmissible; even with all its defects, WKA is not applicable to Cruz. So what is your purpose? To tempt conservatives and Republicans with "Cruz is eligible", to trick them so as to make Obama eligible? Get thee behind me Satan.

The Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 expanded upon earlier efforts of John Ward in securing The Treaty Of Tianjin. An understanding of the principal of reciprocal extraterritoriality would likely be helpful to you, but it appears your grasp of domestic state and federal legislation is tenuous at best, let alone immigration law, constitutional law or international law. Chinese law, lol? It doesn't appear to have dawned upon you that Chinese subjects are under the jurisdiction of Chinese law even in the United States.

Suffice it to say that China claimed Chinese as subjects within the United States, and this included children born to subjects. The United States reciprocated in order to reach an agreement upon further opening China, to trade primarily but there was also a quaint desire to assist the spread of Christianity, too.

I suppose that offends your sensibilities as well. If so it doesn't change a thing as far as facts on the ground at the time, though. Modern sentiment does not constitute a time machine that somehow reaches back and erases law we now find disagreeable, no matter how hard the left tries to leave that impression.

Quite the champion for Obama, aren’t you?

We were attempting to discuss eligibility or the lack of it, as far as Republican Ted Cruz is concerned.

Please elaborate upon just how any of these opinions have bearing upon Ted Cruz, then we can discuss it further.

Until then, it just looks like an intentionally disruptive data dump.

There is proof from very early in our republic that Cruz would be eligible. From the Naturalization Act of 1790

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Subsequent laws have clarified and proscribed other conditions, but none of those, as far as I know, disqualify Cruz. His mother had lived in the US long enough so he is considered natural born.

(Been gone for a while due to medical issues - it feels good to be back!)

Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and US mother. So even if the 1790 Act was still in force, which it is not, it would not apply.

And do note that this is the ONLY time “natural born citizen” has appeared in statute and it is consanguineous.

No, I’m a fan of “stare decisis” and textualism in statutory interpretation regardless of who the legal precedent relates to.
Recent court rulings on who qualifies as a natural born citizen and which legal precedents are used to determine that are germane to Senator Cruz’s eligibility or lack thereof.

I agree with Sarah Palin, who when asked if she questioned Obama’s faith or citizenship replied: “I don’t, and those are distractions. What we’re concerned about is the economy. And we’re concerned about the policies coming out of his administration and what he believes in terms of big government or private sector. So, no, the faith, the birth certificate, others can engage in that kind of conversation. It’s distracting. It gets annoying and let’s just stick with what really matters.”