Posted on 05/18/2013 7:52:44 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada but is qualified to become president should he mount a campaign in 2016 or beyond.
Cruz was born in Calgary, and his father is from Cuba. But the Republican senator’s mother is from the first state of Delaware, which appears to settle the issue.
Government officials didn’t exactly have to scramble for the information amid speculation the firebrand freshman senator was contemplating a presidential run and might be ineligible, considering similar questions about President Obama’s birth prompted the Congressional Research Office to compile a 2009 report to try to resolve the issue.
The 14-page report by the non-partisan office’s legislative attorney Jack Maskell essentially states the Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be president: one must be at least 35, a resident within the United States for 14 years and a “natural born citizen.”
The report states "the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including … those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements."
However, Maskell points out in an expanded, Nov. 2011 memorandum “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”
Cruz has excited the Republican Party’s conservative base during his first five months in the Senate – while annoying moderates – by opposing everything from Obama Cabinet nominations to the bipartisan Senate immigration bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And yet here you are.
Distracted much?
Had the senior Cruz never been resident in the US? I’d understood that he had.
It would be a convoluted matter to untangle in order to make any conclusive determination, but there exist plausible scenarios that could mean Ted Cruz actually is eligible. I’ve posted them before and would love to see such a thing have it’s day in court.
Cruz might not get a favorable decision, but doubts regarding certain individuals in certain contexts would be removed in the process, both favorably and unfavorably as far as Presidential eligibility is concerned. The permissive free-for-all being assumed currently is a recipe for disaster.
Your response failed to address the question and it failed to acknowledge the words in the Constitution.
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.
Your response to that question also reveals you are willing to set aside the Constitution to achieve the political results you desire but I am not. What we do have in common is that we will both vote for Senator Cruz if he runs for president.
I come down more on Governor Palin’s “annoyed” side.
I hate to see good patriotic, constitution loving conservatives being used as dupes by the Obama administration.
Straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals,” the Obama political Bible: “Take what your opposition considers to be your weakness and make it your strength.”
Obama has had 201 consecutive legal victories on eligibility and no defeats, plus he has gotten Republicans to defend him. The landmark Obama eligibility ruling is Ankeny v. Daniels in Indiana. “Daniels” is Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana and President George W. Bush’s Director of Management and Budget.
The Alabama Supreme Court is preparing to rule on McInnish v. Chapman.
The defendant, Beth Chapman is the Republican Secretary of State of Alabama, defending Obama’s eligibility.
It’s a classic “divide and conquer” technique and its worked, twice.
No one asked for personal information and no one cares. The way you are answering or shall we say not answering questions suggest you are not a real Freeper; rather a troll. As for truth, I doubt seriously what you post is truth. It is more like your fantasy version of the truth which usually says you a troll. Our BS meter is full out on your posts.
Your Concern is duly noted.
Agree.
1. It’s clear that the Framers of the Constitution understood that Congress’ “power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization” INCLUDED the ability to specify that children born abroad to US citizen parents were to be legally counted as natural born citizens.
That might seem counter-intuitive. But iIf this had not been the case, the First Congress and First President, which included 40% of the Signers of the Constitution, would NEVER have passed a law making it so.
And it is clear that the only implication of declaring they were to be counted as “natural born” citizens, rather than merely as citizens, was that they would be eligible to be President.
Therefore it is clear that the Founders DID NOT intend to establish some rule whereby only persons born on US soil to two citizen parents would be “natural born citizen” eligible to the Presidency.
That’s clear. So the entire bogus birther claim fails on that one point.
2. EVERY recognized national authority prior to 1850, and EVERY person close to them who wrote on the meaning of the Presidential eligibility, wrote that the President had to be either “born in the United States” or “born a citizen” or a “citizen by birth.”
EVERY SINGLE ONE.
There is not ONE single recognized national authority prior to 1850 who EVER said they relied on Vattel’s idea of citizenship, or that the President had to be born on US soil of two citizen parents, or that being a natural born citizen required both.
No real evidence on its behalf, and LOTS of evidence against it, means that your claim = complete and total BS.
3. As pointed out, Gray abrogated no treaties. The treaty never specified the status of children who would be born to Chinese persons resident in the United States. By the long-standing principle of citizenship, recognized by the US Supreme Court in Wong, and historically recognized by the Founders and early legal experts (such as Rawle, who stated it absolutely explicitly), such persons were legally US citizens at and by birth - natural born citizens.
4. Madison’s letter to Washington stating that the English common law was not generally in force was a response to George Mason’s COMPLAINT that it wasn’t. His complaint was that without the common law being in force at the national level, American citizens would no longer be guaranteed the rights they had had as English subjects.
5. Notwithstanding the fact that the common law was not generally in force at the national level, Alexander Madison tells us we have to look to the English common law for the definitions of words used in the Constitution. There are many terms used in the Constitution that appear nowhere else - including:
Impeachment. Felonies. Treason. Bribery. Indictment. Cases in equity. Bankruptcy. Attainder. Writ of habeas corpus. And natural born.
And these terms appear NOWHERE else.
Not in Vattel. NOWHERE.
Their definition is solely to be found in the English common law.
6. Notwithstanding the fact that the common law was not generally in force at the national level, Vice Chancellor Lewis Sandford examined the law in detail and concluded (correctly) that the SAME RULE FOR CITIZENSHIP - the common law rule - was in force in EVERY SINGLE STATE whent the Constitution was adopted.
He correctly deduced that if the Constitution referred to “citizens” without defining the term, then the Founders must have used a term that had a MEANING. Therefore, he deduced (again, correctly) that there must have been some unwritten rule that specified exactly what the term “citizen” meant.
He quite reasonably concluded that since there was ONE AND ONLY ONE rule for citizenship that applied in each and every State that made up the United States, then the national rule MUST be the one that applied in each and every State.
And the US Supreme Court, in Wong, favorably cited his reasoning, indicating that THEY AGREED WITH HIM.
7. There are therefore two separate and equally valid LEGAL rationales for knowing what “natural born citizen” meant: The principle told us by Hamilton, that words in the Constitution have their definitions in the common law, and Sandford’s deduction that there must have been a national rule, and method for deducing what that national rule was.
Both of them end up in exactly the same place. Both of them indicate that we built our citizenship doctrine on the common law rule. And by that common law rule, it DID NOT take both birth on the soil plus citizen parents. Everyone born in the country was a member of the country (”subject” or “citizen”) unless the child of foreign royalty, foreign diplomats, or invading armies.
In practice, the common law rule also expanded the term to include those declared to be BORN members of the society (”subjects” or “citizens”) due to the fact they were born abroad to subjects or citizens. This is in perfect accordance with the action of the First Congress in declaring that such persons would be considered as natural born citizens - which, again, means they would be eligible to the Presidency.
8. There is a THIRD method for knowing what “natural born citizen” meant: Look and see what the Founders and other early legal experts wrote that illustrated the meaning of the term.
Every Founder or Framer or nationally-recognized early legal expert is in agreement with the principles I have stated.
EVERY SINGLE ONE.
9. There is a FOURTH method for getting to the meaning of natural born citizen: See what the US Supreme Court had to say about it.
You may not like Justice Gray’s Opinion (although it is in accordance with all of our Founders and Framers and early legal experts). But it is the law of the land.
And as the Congressional Research Service rightly noted, any fair reading of Wong Kim Ark recognizes that the Court (both the Majority AND the Dissent) recognized that the ruling was that Wong was a natural born citizen and eligible, on meeting the other qualifications, to be elected President.
10. The words of Representative John Bingham, Senator Lyman Trumbull, and Senator Jacob Howard have previously been twisted by birthers to mean things those gentlemen did not intend them to say. Here, you twist them again, by presenting them out of context (as birthers always do). Since these have been gone over so many times already, and since this post is so long, I am simply going to note that the birther interpretation fo their words has already been thoroughly debunked. Interested readers can search my past posts for the details.
11. The quote from Attorney General Williams seems to be new in this discussion. But like literally every major argument made by birthers, their usage of it is bogus.
The question Williams was answering was:
“Can a person who has FORMALLY RENOUNCED his allegiance to the United States and assumed the obligations of a citizen or subject of another power, become again a citizen of the United States in any other way than in the manner provided by law?”
Williams began his response by saying that a person who had renounced his allegiance had legally become an alien. He then added,
“Actual naturalization abroad would seem to be necessary to make a person born in the United States an alien.”
Note what he DIDN’T say: He didn’t say a person had to be born in the US of citizen parents in order to be a citizen. His statement strongly implies that EVERY person born in the US, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, is a citizen.
Which, of course, we know was true, with the few often-mentioned historical exceptions.
His POINT in the quote that you cite is:
“ALIENS, among whom are persons BORN HERE AND NATURALIZED ABROAD [i.e., those who were born here but renounced their citizenship], dwelling or being in this country, are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES ONLY TO A LIMITED EXTENT. POLITICAL AND MILITARY RIGHTS AND DUTIES DO NOT PERTAIN TO THEM.”
So Williams NEVER says that persons BORN in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in any limited extent. He says ALIENS are. But persons born in the United States ARE NOT ALIENS. THEY ARE CITIZENS.
So your quotes from Bingham and Trumbull never said what you claim. And your quote from Williams doesn’t either.
12. Why do you leave out the many, MANY authorities who make points that legitimately go directly AGAINST your BS?
Just asking.
13. Gray never claims the term “jurisdiction” is strictly territorial and not political. He interpreted the term as those who passed the Civil Rights Act and the drafted the 14th Amendment did: If you were fully subject to the laws of the United States, then you were subject to the “jurisdiction” of the United States. This excluded ambassadors, foreign royalty, invading armies, and Indians in tribes. It included citizens and resident aliens who were not members of the aforementioned exceptions.
14. I’ve already dealt with the fact that it wasn’t just North Carolina who adopted the common law rule for citizenship. It was literally EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 13 original colonies. And probably every State that joined the Union in the years following the adoption of the Constitution as well.
In any event, it is clear that if we had a national rule upon the adoption of the Constitution (and as Sandford observed, we must have had one) that rule was the same rule that applied in EVERY SINGLE ONE of the original States.
15. You incorrectly state that the rationale of a Supreme Court case, if it is incorrect, is “dicta.” This is simply not true. Whether it is correct or not, if it’s the core reasoning of the case, it is NOT dicta.
This is BASIC LAW. By claiming otherwise, you show yourself to be either ignorant of basic law, or willing to twist the basic principles of law to any contortions to try and support your stupid, false, unsupportable bogus birther claim.
Not that the rationale in Wong was incorrect. It was in accord with the citizenship rule in force at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, with the words of the Founders and Framers, with the words of every nationally-recognized legal expert, with historical usage of the term “natural born,” and with all prior case law that had spoken on the subject.
In other words: They got this particular ruling completely correct.
16. The Court in Wong clearly found Wong to be a natural born citizen. This is not contested by any court or any nationally-recognized legal expert, or by any conservative Constitutional foundation.
That being the case, YES, Wong Kim Ark is binding precedent in regard to Presidential eligibility, since Presidential eligibility hinges on the meaning of that term.
17. What is my purpose? It’s pretty damn straightforward. As a genuine conservative who values the Constitution, I don’t like people trashing the Constitution while claiming to be conservatives and doing so in the name of “conservatism.”
It is not the mission of conservatism to tear down the Constitution and our laws in order to make a futile and false attempt to declare our opponent “ineligible.”
It is the mission of conservatism to uphold the Constitution and defeat the bastard.
I'll take your word for it.
US law said that persons born in the United States were US citizens, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents at the time they were born.
That in fact is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled.
And the treaties with China did not exclude children born to Chinese subjects resident here from that US law.
So you claim that the decision in Wong abrogated the treaty. But you can't point to any clause in the treaty that the decision abrogated.
In other words, your claim was complete BS. Just like I said. Because there WAS no clause in the treaty that was overruled by the Court in Wong.
Gee. This is pretty predictable. A birther says something, I say it's BS, we explore it further, and lo and behold - it turns out to be BS.
I suppose that offends your sensibilities as well.
By no means. I'm not offended by Christianity at all. In fact, I just got back from church.
The principle of citizenship that you want to pretend doesn't exist, by the way, was originally FOUNDED upon St. Paul's writings in the Bible.
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.
Then why are you trying so hard to substitute your ideas for what the Founding Fathers SHOULD have done, for what they actually did?
I’m glad.
If I were willing to set aside the Constitution, believe me, we would not be having this discussion.
I’m glad you’ll be voting for Senator Cruz if he runs.
You can do so with a clear conscience. He is eligible. No one should refuse to vote for him in the belief he isn’t.
Try to look at the big picture, Jeff. First of all, natural born citizenship status is not held in perpetuity, i.e. it can be lost with the issuance of a CLN. Also, any U.S. citizen, regardless of age or ability to make a convincing argument, can move out of the country and renounce their U.S. Citizenship.
Did you know there are instances where dead U.S. Citizens have renounced their U.S. Citizenship? Like a small child, they are not able to make a convincing argument they know the consequences of an Oath of Renunciation. Consequently, their legal representative must make their case for them. A small child, a dead person, a person who does not read or speak English can have a CLN issued to them through a convincing argument by their legal representative.
We know Obama was enrolled as Barry Soetoro, Indonesian National, on Jan 1, 1968. He could not have done that without a CLN issued to him prior to this time. Further evidence of Obama’s foreign nationality can be obtained by examining his NUMIDENT with SSA. In 1977, Obama was a permanent resident alien entitled to a SSN. Tax exempt Catholic Social Services of Connecticut contracted with HHS at the time to provide foster care services to minors with foreign nationality. At the time, only foreign nationals could be enrolled in the Federal Foster Care program.
Any determination of eligibility will have to be accompanied by an examination of the candidate’s immigration file if the candidate has ever lived outside of the country. Obama has taken advantage of the false narrative natural born citizenship status is held in perpetuity. Obama’s immigration file includes a Certificate of Naturalization issued in 1983.
You’re incapable of arguing persuasively, with spottily pieced together snippets from various pro-Obama sites that you yourself clearly do not understand, you come here, get your proverbial &$$ handed to you, resort to ad hominem and then try to wrap yourself in the flag. Predictable as grass growing, just needing cut down from time to time.
I will repeat the questions that YOU asked, that I refused to elaborate on:
Exactly who are you?
And:
Big deal; now exactly who are you?
If that's not asking for personal information, I don't know what is.
The way you are answering or shall we say not answering questions suggest you are not a real Freeper; rather a troll.
So because I don't tell you "exactly who I am," I'm a TROLL?
People who falsely accuse others of crap - THOSE are the trolls.
So if you're going to be one, then go away.
As for truth, I doubt seriously what you post is truth. It is more like your fantasy version of the truth which usually says you a troll. Our BS meter is full out on your posts.
Do you know why you "doubt seriously" that what I post is the truth?
It's for two reasons.
Reason #1: You don't like what I post.
Reason #2: You're either too lazy, or too busy, or too unskilled, or too reluctant, to really go out there and first, pay close attention to what I've written and actually understand it, and second, to go out there are research the original sources to find out for yourself whether it's true or not.
Birthers have a universal characteristic: Either actively or passively, they embrace falsehood.
For most of them, it's probably passive. It's a belief that whatever "authority" you happen to like (because he is telling you comfortable things) is telling you the truth.
In real life, it often turns out that the person telling you things you don't actually want to hear is the one who is really your friend, and the guy with the comforting story is BSing you.
Birthers are also suckers for the line that if we, 225 years later, imagine that the Founding Fathers did such-and-such, why, it MUST be so.
But you don't determine what the Founding Fathers did by coming up with some theory you like, and then saying, by G**, the Founders must've done that.
This is a LIBERAL approach. It's not a conservative one.
And you can justify literally ANYTHING with this approach.
Because SURELY the Founding Fathers wouldn't force people to be deprived of having the fulfillment of being loved by the person they're in love with, would they?
And SURELY the Founding Fathers wouldn't want people to suffer from a lack of healthcare, would they? They would want EVERYONE to have access to healthcare. Isn't the right to life the most fundamental right the Constitution protects? Isn't that the number one thing they fought for? And freedom, and the right to the pursuit of happiness?
And SURELY the Founding Fathers wouldn't want people to have to live in fear for their lives from all of these modern, semi-automatic weapons.
So obviously, the Founding Fathers enshrined gay marriage, Obamacare and an assault weapons ban in the Constitution. I mean, OBVIOUSLY, they NEVER intended for people to just run around with these weapons that you can kill so many people with.
The fact is, using the birther approach, you can push any damn thing you want.
That's NOT how we determine what the Founding Fathers supported, and what they did not support.
We determine what they supported by what they SAID, and by what they DID. They didn't write,
No person shall be eligible to the Office of President, except one born on United States soil to two citizen parents, or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.
No, they wrote:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.
And those words - "natural born Citizen" - had a very specific legal meaning that was understood by everybody.
And we can know what that meaning was, by what all of the most credible and authoritative people in our society wrote and said about it. Those who were legal experts. Those who wrote entire books on the Constitution, such as William Rawle and St. George Tucker. Those who were close to the Founders and Framers, such as Philip Mazzei and the Marquis de Lafayette.
And all of those historical figures - every single one of the AUTHORITATIVE AND CREDIBLE ones - were in agreement, with themselves and with the entire tradition and law of the United States.
You don't have to take my word for it. I don't WANT you to take my word for it.
I want you to research the truth and see for yourself that what I've said is true, and stop spinning bogus theories on your OWN accord.
Does that answer for you well enough who I am?
Yessir. I understand that.
Did you know there are instances where dead U.S. Citizens have renounced their U.S. Citizenship?
No, I did not know that.
We know Obama was enrolled as Barry Soetoro, Indonesian National, on Jan 1, 1968. He could not have done that without a CLN issued to him prior to this time.
I believe that it's here your argument falls apart. First, you would need to prove that's legally the case. Even if you did, I've been to places like Indonesia. What's theoretically legally possible and what is actually possible are two completely different things.
Obama’s immigration file includes a Certificate of Naturalization issued in 1983.
Do you have a copy? Because if you do, things could get interesting. If you don't, as I say, it's all academic.
No it doesn’t. It’s just a very, very long bunch of mish mash. You still don’t answer who are you which I suspect is a troll. Every post shows you demonstrate classic troll.
BTW, you could learn to work smart; but I suppose that’s not possible given the long winded gas bag posts you post. You don’t seem to give facts; more like selected fantasies. It also sounds like your thinking is convoluted.
HAHAHAHAHA.
Now THAT was good for a laugh.
And I'm not just saying that. I literally chuckled.
Okay. You want some more information?
I am a conservative and have been a conservative my whole life. I respect and value the Constitution, and I respect and value the truth.
I feel the same way about Obama as 99% of people who post at FreeRepublic.
You can check the things I post for yourself, and see whether they're true.
I can tell you this: The vast majority of arguments made by birthers are total BS. They are not taken seriously by anybody except people who don't understand them and want to believe them.
BTW, you could learn to work smart; but I suppose that’s not possible given the long winded gas bag posts you post.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Don't go into detail, and birthers will say you don't have the facts. Go into detail and give all the facts, and birthers will say your posts are "long winded" and "convoluted."
The Supreme Court spends 50 or more pages in writing up a decision on a single point. I and others standing up to the onslaught of birther BS have been covering the entire history and law of citizenship in the United States.
Your complaint that my posts are "long winded" is a sign you may not have the tolerance for detail needed to really understand history and law. If you want to understand history and law, I suggest you build up that tolerance.
Here. I'll make it simple for you.
In the very early dawn of the term, "natural born" meant anyone born in the country, unless their parents were foreign royalty, foreign ambassadors, or members of an invading army.
As time went on, the term really expanded to include those born citizens to citizens abroad.
Every American Colony had the same rule that had always applied in England.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that we ever changed that rule, and the Supreme Court said it applied to the United States as a whole.
The bottom line is: Anyone who is born a citizen is effectively a natural born citizen, and is therefore eligible to be President.
This includes children born in the US of citizen parents, children born in the US of non-citizen resident aliens, and children born US citizens to American citizen parents abroad.
Although some authorities aren't clear or definite on the final point (only), no widely-recognized, national-level legal authority actually disputes any of this.
Again, bottom line: If you're born a citizen, you're going to be counted as and considered to be a natural born citizen. And you are eligible to be elected President.
And it doesn't matter whether you or I like the law. That's what the law is.
You should get a load of the literal chuckles associated with your efforts among those you believe yourself to be influencing.
They’re still guffawing over your homemade Venn Diagram that illustrated the gaping hole in your ever-evolving contentions far better than any opponent ever could.
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.