Ted Cruz Takes Center Stage, Media Increases Attacks

Videos at link.

Please don't elevate him to the throne yet. As we know this throne has been dishonored beyond our wildest nightmares by a phony, halfrican-Muslim-Socialist. I like many here have rallied to a possible candidate who appears Conservative only to watch them either fall under the bus or be shoved. Rubio comes to mind as recent bitter examples.

Cruz appears much better than expected, as does Ron Paul; however he hasn't been around long enough as yet to prove his credentials or resolve. Unless this resolve is proven we could end up looking quite foolish.

At this point we have two seemingly great candidates: Cruz and Paul, but we need more time to test the bona fides. Looking over the roster and ACU voting records of Congressrats there are few to none worth the powder and lead.

I thought that the eligibility issue was very important because had everyone gotten on board and demanded the frauds real proof of eligibility, we likely would not have the mess he created and the danger he continues to pose to our country and the world.

We now have a farce in the White House that is not qualified in any way to be there, Neither ethically, morally, mentally, or legitimately .

I believe Cruz to be ineligible, However if Obama is there why not Cruz?

As for Chris Mathews:”the unsmiling contemptuous face of the wild, nasty hard left fringe”. Describes himself perfectly.

I cannot see how someone as biased, nasty, and ignorant as that fool can be working as a Journalist, except for a news organization that has zero credibility in the first place.

You didn’t see the latest ratings? MSNBC is below “one note tune” HLN. I suppose now MSNBC will be in a ratings race with local cable access channels.

Cruz will be “Palinized” just like she and her family was. ANYONE that threatens their biased, distorted and crooked way of thinking will have the wrath of liberalizm heaped upon them. The left will do anything, say anything and create any lie needed to bring their competition down. Truely they are a sick, disgusting people.

If the media is attacking him so fiercely we know it’s a good thing; he’s stepping on the toes that need to be broken.

The corrupt MSM will do everything they can to destroy Cruz — everything. It will be daily expressions of faux outrage over what he's said or didn't say. Cruz will say something controversial and the corrupt MSM will use that to try and garrote him.

The corrupt MSM is in the very beginning stages of trying to do to Cruz what they did to Palin and others. It won't be long before Jon Stewart jumps on the pile along with Bill Maher in their scornful ridicule.

Next it will be Karl Rove who will provide damning praise for Cruz.

We will see who the cowards are who run away from Cruz and who the patriots are in the days and months ahead.

If Ted Cruz and Ron Paul are the only two “good” choices, then we’re down to Ted Cruz.

And it seems impossible to get onto a Ted Cruz thread before the uninformed or willfully ignorant come out and proclaim him to be ineligible. He’s not. The message from our Founding Generation is that they intended those who were born citizens to be eligible to the Presidency.

This is shown several different ways. First, in John Jay’s letter that led to the qualification. He didn’t underline “natural” or the entire phrase. He underlined “BORN.”

Secondly, it’s obvious that the Framers of the Constitution believed that Congress had the ability to say who, born overseas to US parents, was eligible to the Presidency, since one of the things our very First Congress did was exactly that. They passed an Act proclaiming that the children born outside the United States to US citizens were to be considered NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, as long as their father had EVER lived in the US, and President Washington signed it into law the next day.

The extremely obvious effect of this “NATURAL BORN” declaration was to declare that such foreign-born US citizens would be eligible to be elected President one day. Between Congress and President Washington himself (who had presided over the Constitutional Convention) 40% of the Framers of the Constitution signed off on the law, without one person raising a single objection.

So it is completely, absolutely obvious that by “natural born citizen” the Framers did NOT mean “born on US soil to two US citizen parents.”

That a later Congress dropped the words “natural born” and said only that such persons were citizens, really doesn’t matter, either. And here’s why:

The historical understanding of “natural born citizen” throughout US history has always been that if a person is born a citizen, then he’s eligible to be President. This was always true both among lawyers, judges and politicians, and among the general public. And I can back this statement up with literally HUNDREDS of quotes.

It is clear, then, that - whatever the intentions of the Third Congress, who dropped the words “natural born” from the law - Congresses since then throughout US history who passed laws stating which children born to US citizens overseas were themselves citizens, had no intention to make such foreign-born US citizens ineligible to be President.

By this reasoning, Ted Cruz is eligible, and I have no doubt that our court system, including the Supreme Court, would affirm that he is.

Third, it was stated with absolute authority by William Rawle, extremely close associate of Washington, Franklin and half a dozen other Framers, that persons born on US soil were Constitutionally natural born citizens whether their parents were citizens or aliens.

Fourth, in the case of people like Ted Cruz, James Bayard wrote very specifically in his 1834 Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States that it was NOT necessary to be born in the United States in order to be Constitutionally eligible to be President. It was only necessary to be born a citizen, or to be a “citizen by birth.” This was an explicit declaration that people like Ted Cruz are eligible.

Bayard’s exposition was read and approved by none other than Chief Justice John Marshall, the “Great Chief Justice” who dominated the US Supreme Court for 35 years starting just 13 years after the Constitution was adopted.

If anyone was in a position to know what the Founders meant by the term, it was Marshall. From his approving letter to Bayard, it’s clear that he read Bayard’s book. And he would not have missed such an important matter as who was eligible to be President.

Fifth, all of the above is just the tiny tip of the iceberg when it comes to the historical and legal evidence that the Framers of the Constitution, and those who adopted it, did NOT mean a person had to be both born on US soil and have citizen parents to be eligible to be President. There are only two known legitimate sources from early America who ever claimed otherwise. Both are emphatically contradicted by far more credible authorities.

The first is David Ramsey, whose opinion on the matter was voted down 36 to 1 by our first House of Representatives, including Father of the Constitution James Madison and 5 other Framers. So obviously Ramsey was wrong.

The second is Samuel Roberts, a lower-court judge who presided over several COUNTIES in Pennsylvania, who stated that people born in the US to alien parents were not US citizens.

Roberts never had any responsibilities outside of the several-counties scope of his court, cited no authority for his comment, and (contrary to false claims by DiogenesLamp) did not speak with the authority of anyone other than himself. Specifically, he did NOT speak for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He mentioned their report in his book, but he clearly did not speak on their behalf.

Which brings us to the fact that birthers have made, and continue to make, literally DOZENS of false arguments to try and prop up their failed theory.

The real evidence, however (and I’ve presented only the tiniest portion of it here) is clear: The Founders and Framers intended that the President should be BORN a US citizen.

In terms of contemporary legal opinion, there doesn’t seem to be any major contemporary legal authority who says otherwise. Every major legal scholar seems to believe Cruz is eligible.

And they are correct.

As noted earlier in this thread, it’s still to early to say whether Ted Cruz would make a great President.

But we should dispense with the nonsense that Senator Cruz is not a viable and legal option.

Jeff wrote:
“If Ted Cruz and Ron Paul are the only two “good” choices, then we’re down to Ted Cruz.

And it seems impossible to get onto a Ted Cruz thread before the uninformed or willfully ignorant come out and proclaim him to be ineligible. He’s not.”

My response:
It seems impossible to get onto a Ted Cruz thread before the uninformed or willfully ignorant come out and proclaim him to be eligible. He’s not.

I guess I haven’t been keeping up with the news because I haven’t heard or read anything about Cruz being ineligible for the Presidency, what’s it all about? I’ve been hoping we had at last found a presidential candidate who is a real, honest to God conservative who has everything it takes to go all the way to the top if he decides to go for it. So please, pretty please, don’t destroy my fondest daydream by telling me he was born in another country.

Well Cruz was born in North America or so we are told......

I think Cruz will leave a mark no matter what role he plays in our political landscape. He doesn’t have to be president to carry a big stick. I am just glad he’s in D.C.!

It seems impossible to get onto a Ted Cruz thread before the uninformed or willfully ignorant come out and proclaim him to be eligible. He’s not.

There's a difference between the opinions expressed by those who believe Cruz is eligible, and the opinion expressed by you and the other Stooges.

Mine is backed by the history and law. Yours isn't.

It is clear that the term "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," with the word "citizen" substituted for "subject" when we stopped referring to ourselves as "subjects" and started referring to ourselves as "citizens."

It is clear that every single State kept the same rule for membership in their society (that is, citizenship or subjecthood, whichever term you prefer) that they had ALWAYS had, and that was the rule of the common law.

It is clear that that same rule was in force in EVERY SINGLE STATE at that time of the adoption of the Constitution; therefore (as Vice Chancellor Lewis Sandford of New York later noted) it was the NATIONAL rule in effect on the adoption of the Constitution.

It is clear that, as Alexander Hamilton informed us, terms in the Constitution were written in the language of the English common law. And "natural born" appears no place other than the common law. Swiss philosopher Vattel, so precious to birthers, never, EVER used the term or any equivalent in the passage birthers so love to cite, and his words weren't mistranslated using that term until 10 years after the Constitution was written.

It is clear that the US Supreme Court affirmed that the same rule, the rule of the common law, had always applied in the US.

And it is clear that the common law rule of citizenship put in place by our Founders and Framers did NOT require both birth on US soil and citizen parents. There is a long history, and it NEVER required both in order for a person to be "natural born."

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America (Updated 5/18/13)

James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):

"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. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

The First Congress (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."

Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. It was obviously quite well known that "natural born citizen" made one eligible to be President, and that is the only place the phrase had been used in national law. So it's clear that the First Congress and President were saying that children who would be born overseas to US citizen parents were eligible to the Presidency.

This makes it absolutely clear: The idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE.

In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.

And between the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency, 16 signers of the Constitution - a full 40% of those who signed the Constitution - were members of the group who approved this Act.

They included: James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, and Nicholas Gilman (US House of Representatives), William Samuel Johnson, Richard Bassett, George Read, William Few, John Langdon, William Paterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris and Pierce Butler (US Senate), and President George Washington.

James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1834) - with approval from US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall

"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

This was in Bayard's section on Presidential eligibility.

Chief Justice John Marshall, who was Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court for 35 years, starting just 13 years after the Constitution was ratified, read Bayard's exposition of the Constitution and sent him a letter correcting him that Congress probably didn't need to ask the States for permission to build post and military roads - they had already been authorized to make such improvements.

It was a fairly subtle error. Bayard had written "that the power of Congress extends to lay out military and post-roads, through the several States, 'with their assent.'"

Chief Justice Marshall then wrote:

"With this exception, I do not recollect a single statement in your book which is not, in my judgment, entirely just."

Now that's not 100%, but I think it's close. It's clear that Marshall read the book. And the tone of Marshall's note indicates that he read the entire book. If he had not, he could not have made such a blanket statement.

Presidential eligibility is a pretty important topic, and Marshall would not have missed any significant error in that section.

So we have pretty clear word from one of the best authorities in early America as to what "natural born citizen" meant: It means someone who is a citizen by birth. That includes those born citizens in the United States, and it includes those born US citizens because they were born to American parents abroad.

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson (1785)

In a letter about a treaty with the English, two years before the writing of the Constitution, John Adams wrote:

"...I think about substituting the words 'natural born citizens of the United States,' and 'natural born subjects of Great Britain,' instead of 'the most favored nation.'"

Adams therefore used "natural born citizens of the United States" and "natural born subjects of Great Britain" together and as if the two terms were parallel terms, exactly the same except for the difference between "subject" and "citizen." And Thomas Jefferson was the other person in the dialogue.

"Natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used interchangeably by State of Massachusetts (1785-1790).

This is important because it again shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States. And "natural born subject" had a long legal history. All persons born in the country, even of alien parents, were "natural born subjects," except for the children of representatives of foreign governments, and of invading armies. Here are some examples:

February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In many or most of the States, in fact, the use of "natural born subject" in law gradually gave way to use of "natural born citizen" in the same circumstances.

French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):

“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”

This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional").

One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.

French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):

“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)

By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.

Virginia citizenship law written by Thomas Jefferson (1779):

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth... shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed... "

Like so many other passages from history, birthers have tried to twist the wording and make this law say something other than it says. But the fact is, the citizenship law that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1779 for the Commonwealth of Virginia was straight "jus soli," or "law of the soil." It provided that every white person born in Virginia, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, was a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):

"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.

Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):

"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."

Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.

Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.

French translation, (translated, 1799):

“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”

Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."

Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):

“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)

Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):

“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship.

James Monroe Administration (1812):

In 1811, a James McClure was arrested and held by the French, who were at war with England. He claimed American citizenship but was initially denied help from the United States. Birthers have claimed that a newspaper letter regarding the incident, from a writer using the pseudonym of "Publius," reflected the position of the James Monroe Administration. But once the matter began to be talked about publicly, the Monroe Administration came to McClure's aid. They sent a letter to the French:

"I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates... from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W. Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating 'that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.'"

So Supreme Court Justice Johnson and the Monroe Administration said that McClure was a US citizen solely on the basis of where he was born. No mention seems to have been made at all of his parentage.

Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):

“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”

And once again for Massachusetts. In defining who an alien is, they also define citizenship, because everyone who isn't an alien is a citizen.

Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)

“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”

Like Chief Justice John Marshall, the State of Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."

From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):

“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”

From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.

French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):

“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”

This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.

French books on the Constitution:

“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)

Born citizen, born a citizen.

“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)

Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.

By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

“Therefore 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.”

You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.

Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.

American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:

“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”

Again: The rule was by the common law.

Another French translation, 1837 (translated back):

“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”

Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.

State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):

“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. 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 as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”

Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.

Tennessee State Legislature, An Act to Regulate and Declare the Rights of Foreigners (1838)

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

Clearly defines what "natural born citizen" meant to the Tennessee State Legislature in 1838. Anyone born within the limits of the United States was a natural born citizen without any regard to parentage.

From Spanish-language books on the Constitution (translated):

“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)

Born a citizen.

“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)

Born in the United States. No mention of parents.

Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):

“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)

"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."

Native citizen.

Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):

“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”

America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.

Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:

"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."

In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”

A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."

The communist libs take up the birther stance because of a couple things IMHO:
1. Payback and revenge. Those are two of the biggest drivers in the lib party now, coming straight from the top.
2. The can’t argue against many of the position Cruz takes without revealing themselves to be even more left fringe.

One of the things I like about Cruz is he doesn’t care about the nasties. He just doesn’t seem to pay much attention to it. I’m sure the IRS is looking at his tax history and the libs probably have Gloria Alred sniffing around to see if they can pull some poor mouse out of the woodwork and exploit how she felt “uncomfortable” around Cruz. I agree with those who say the communists and their propogandist media-bots will throw everything at Cruz they have.

How can Cruz be a natural born Canadian citizen (born in Canada) and a natural born US citizen? How can Cruz be a natural born Cuban citizen (father was Cuban citizen) and a natural born US citizen? Citizen at birth is not the same as natural born citizen.

They’re absolutely going to give him the Sarah Palin treatment. You can certainly count on that.

That’s one of the reasons I remain positive toward Palin if she should ever choose to run. She’s been through it already.

But I don’t know if she ever will.

The sad thing is that FR is rampant with people who are basically on the liberals’ side when it comes to Cruz. I say that because such people make all sorts of transparently false arguments in their attempts to shoot Cruz down before he can even get out of the starting gate.

I’m not sure what the difference is between people who call themselves liberals spewing false propaganda to shoot Cruz down, and people who call themselves conservatives spewing false propaganda to shoot Cruz down. Either way seems bad for conservatives.

Well said, except there is always the possibility that the Liberals on the Supreme Court will find a way to disagree. And then there's Roberts...

How can Cruz be a natural born Canadian citizen (born in Canada) and a natural born US citizen? How can Cruz be a natural born Cuban citizen (father was Cuban citizen) and a natural born US citizen? Citizen at birth is not the same as natural born citizen.

Because (as noted by Bayard and approved by Chief Justice Marshall) "natural born citizen" only requires a person be a citizen at or by birth, and persons born US citizens overseas are eligible to be elected President.

This isn't any recent doctrine. Bayard wrote his Exposition of the Constitution in 1834.

There are people born on US soil, to citizen parents, who are BORN dual citizens with another country. Doesn't matter in the slightest. The laws of another country don't and can't specify whether a person is a natural born UNITED STATES citizen.

Don't let the birther propagandists tell you such dual citizenship disqualifies a person, either. It doesn't. That's not part of the specification.

In fact, 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens... WHILE SERVING AS PRESIDENT.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all citizens of France while serving as President. Such citizenship was given to them by the French legislature. Not one of them renounced it.

The Vattel birther meme is simply a false one, propped up by nothing more than propaganda and false arguments. It's been a false meme from the beginning, and it's time it ended.

Especially at a site where people value our history and our Constitution.

This is all news to me, where was Cruz born anyway?

I've gotta start paying more attention to what's happening on the political scene, scenery that I have deliberately tried to ignore in order to keep my mental and emotional health intact ever since Obummer was elected the 2nd time.

Cruz is being too cute by half on illegal immigration. He’s about where Rubio was until the last six months.

First, he’s for a massive amnesty by wanting to legalize the tens of millions of illegals already here.

Second, he wants to hide behind supposed tougher border enforcement provisions, when we already have all kinds of border and other enforcement provisions that are simply not enforced—no reason the same won’t happen again.

Third, the big push is getting them all legalized. Citizenship will be much easier to get through in subsequent legislation.

Fourth, he hasn’t actually said that he won’t vote for the current legislation as it stands—and he knows the Senate will pass it without his vote anyway.

Fifth, he’s la-la if he thinks we need more immigration, which is what he suggests. We have record levels of it now as it is, with less assimilation than ever before.

I don’t care how much he postures as some sort of principled ‘conservative’. His games on illegal immigration, as with Rubio’s, tell me all I need to know about a couple of overambitious pols climbing the GOP ladder.