Ted Cruz Takes Center Stage, Media Increases Attacks

With news Wednesday morning that Michelle Bachmann won’t be running for re-election in 2014, the left has turned their sights quickly to another target: Ted Cruz. Not that they weren’t already focused on him. The left has been foaming at the mouth over Cruz since he boldly stepped on the scene and refused to play by their crooked rules. Bachmann’s exit, however, has introduced a new fervor on the left against Cruz and they’ve taken no time to come at him from every angle.

Seemingly within minutes of Bachmann’s announcement, Washington Bureau Chief of the Houston Chronicle Richard Dunham posted a piece questioning the legality of Ted Cruz running for president. If that doesn’t reveal how scared the left is of Cruz, I’m not sure what does. Calling it “Birther 2.0,” Dunham stated:

Five years after celebrity billionaire Donald Trump and a motley assortment of conservatives raised questions about a liberal Democratic candidate’s American birthplace, the shoe is on the other foot.

Now which liberal Democrat might Dunham be referring to? Well it certainly will be interesting watching the left lose their minds over Ted Cruz’s eligibility after years of them bashing birthers on the right for the same thing. Of course many on the right have consistently argued against the birthers on our side, at RedState they are banned along with those who talk of secession from the union. Yet, I have a feeling that, not only will the left highlight with pride their birthers, they won’t remember our attempts to move on to more important issues.

Even Dunham couldn’t escape the truth in the midst of trying to stir up the controversy:

But there is a wide range of jurisprudence on the issue _ which overwhelmingly favors the notion that Cruz is eligible to serve as president.

I’d have to say Chris Matthews summed up the left’s argument against Cruz pretty well on Friday when he referred to Cruz as, “the unsmiling contemptuous face of the wild, nasty hard right fringe…” Matthews also accused Cruz of being a “political bomb thrower,” while he spent a full minute throwing political bombs at him. Careful Chris, I think you have a little foam showing…

Matthews’ argument seeking to paint Cruz as a crazy right-winger, however, is ultimately the one of which we’ll be seeing more. Twitter was abuzz with transferring their Bachmann hate to Cruz Tuesday evening and, of course, Morning Joe took up the torch first thing Wednesday morning. After explaining that Bachmann made “inflammatory statements” because it “raised a lot of money” (not because she actually believed what she was saying!), Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough predicted wild man Cruz would be the next fading flower.

Well Joe, I have a prediction of my own. Ted Cruz won’t be fading away, instead he’ll continue to take a stand for conservatives across the country. As he continues his rise to the top, Cruz will have an army of conservatives behind him who’ve waited far too long for a leader who doesn’t compromise on the issues we hold dear. And watching liberals seethe in the background? Well, that’ll just make the ride that much more fun.

The term "natural born subject" was a legal term of art that originally came from natural law. Over time, it was expanded to include children born abroad to both the king and his subjects.

It comes from the theory that anyone born on the Kings land, is "naturally" owing eternal allegiance to the King. Again, let Sir Michael Foster (1762) explain it to you.

Sect. 1. With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places. This is what We call Natural Allegiance, in Contradistinction to that which is Local. The Duty of Allegiance, whether Natural or Local, is founded in the Relation the Person standeth in to the Crown, and in the Privileges He deriveth from that Relation. Local Allegiance is founded in the Protection a Foreigner enjoyeth for his Person, his Family or Effects during his Residence here; and it Ceaseth whenever He withdraweth with his Family and Effects. Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member; and on the peculiar Privileges He deriveth from that Relation, which are with great Propriety called his Birthright. This Birthright nothing but his own Demerit can deprive Him of; it is Indefeasible and perpetual. And consequently the Duty of Allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is inseperably Connected with it, is in Consideration of Law likewise Unalienable and Perpetual.

And this is the theory of "natural law" upon which Jeff Wishes to believe US Citizenship is based. Did I mention how dumb his theory is?

“Obviously, their statement didn’t mean what you think it meant, because everything else they said is compatible with the historical understanding of natural born citizen.”

No. That’s not true.

Born in country to two citizen parents IS the historical definition of natural born CITIZEN based on Vattel, who the Founders were fully aware of as were Supreme Court Justices, as has been shown to you on any number of occasions.

If you’re trying to force down our throats the English Common Law version of natural born SUBJECT, you are flying in the face of the historical record that the United States was NOT founded on English Common Law as has been shown to you on any number of occasions.

I don’t understand your desire to willfully dilute the definition of natural born Citizen that allows us to get into the exact situation we are in, unless that is your goal.

As I’ve mentioned to you before, until you’re posted to SCOTUS as your final job, your deliberate mis-interpretation of historical record is just as in-valid as everyone elses.

Minor v. Happersett didn’t define the term for the purposes of Presidential eligibility.

An idiot argument. It defined the term generally, therefore it applied to specific instances. What's more, they explicitly said the 14th amendment doesn't define "natural born citizen", and that we would have to look elsewhere for the definition.

But hey, Jeff, isn't the 14th amendment YOUR definition? Odd that the court explicitly says YOUR definition doesn't define what is a "natural born citizen".

Minor v. Happersett never stated that children born on US soil to non-citizen parents weren’t natural born citizens.

Yes it did. It specifically says the 14th amendment (part of the constitution) doesn't "...say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." It clearly rejects the argument that the 14th amendment creates natural citizens. (A point which is obvious to any non-moron.)

The comment in Minor v. Happersett was dicta, a total side comment unsupported by any authority whatsoever, and therefore of no value at all in setting any kind of precedent.

And here comes the loser argument; the claim that the Supreme Court judges are ignorant about obvious points of law.

Even if it had defined the term and set some precedent, that would’ve been overruled by US v. Wong Kim Ark, which discussed natural born citizenship for literally dozens of pages before finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

But they didn't write that Jeff. They wrote "citizen." Ink wasn't so expensive that they needed to save those two words, they intentionally omitted them because they did not regard him as a "natural" citizen. He was a citizen as the result of the 14th amendment, nothing more.

Your type have been expanding their intent ever since. You helped Obama by running interference for him.

History is not "axiomatic."

I didn't say it was. Here you are pulling a "bait and switch". I said the requirements to be President included Citizen parents because that is an axiomatic characteristic of a "natural citizen" which *IS* a requirement to be President.

You don't read the term "natural born citizen" and say, "Hmm. Natural. Born. Citizen. That means [insert what you think it means.] Therefore, it means [whatever you decided from some idiotic birther theory that it 'means.']"

It certainly doesn't mean "based on the Law of the English Monarchy we overthrew. " Whatever fanciful definition you wish for the meaning of "natural", That obviously isn't it.

You go to history and law to FIND OUT what the hell it means.

You studiously ignore what the LAWYERS say, and you expressly look at what the LAW MAKERS said and did.

History grants you no relief. Millions of Slaves, Millions of Indians, and ~ 100,000 Children of British Loyalists born after 1776, simply did not follow this rule that you think is so prevalent and historical.

And it simply does not, and never did mean, "born on US soil of two citizen parents."

Actually, just the father. The Mother's Citizenship was automatically the same as the Husbands.

But that is beside the point. It certainly never meant "anchor babies", but following YOUR stupid theory is how we got those.

No, they don't.

I know it feels to you like a knife in your back, but John Marshall and Bushrod Washington are busy twisting the blade.

I've read what they wrote, asshat.

And still incredulously you cannot believe they would betray you so horribly. And you thought they were your friends.

In fact, Marshall CONFIRMS the HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING that "natural born citizen" means "citizen by birth," because he wrote a letter to James Bayard saying he'd read his book and found nothing in it to disagree with except that Congress didn't need permission from the States to build post and military roads.

No, this is just Jeff valiantly trying to reach for a straw that remains ever out of his grasp. You attribute too much import to Marshall's offhand comment that he couldn't remember anything in the book with which he disagreed, (not a very hearty endorsement in my opinion), and you do in fact ignore that Marshall was quite fond of quoting Vattel, and quoted him quite a lot. (From Ziegler's "International law of John Marshall")

Also, you further ignore the fact that being "born a citizen" at that time required a citizen father, and so therefore is nothing consequential in Bayard's comment.

You just stretch and twist in your attempts to force the meaning you want out of other people's words and if they don't say what you want, you torture them some more.

Here is Jeff and his allies at work on some poor words now.

And Bayard said EXPLICITLY that when it came to Presidential eligibility, you didn't have to be born in the United States;

And as I pointed out, Vattel says the same thing.

being a CITIZEN BY BIRTH was enough,

Sure, if you had a citizen father, you were a citizen at birth. All natural born citizens are "citizens by birth."

so children born citizens to US citizen parents abroad - JUST LIKE TED CRUZ, YOU ASSHAT - were ELIGIBLE.

Cruz was born to a parent, not parent(s). And the lesser one as well. Acts of congress do not alter the meaning of constitutional terms. Cruz would not be a citizen at all except for the act of Congress passed in 1934 which allowed women to pass on basic and conditional citizenship.

You are simply incapable of comprehending that an act of congress cannot make something "natural" which is not. It is a twisted little world you live in, and one without a solid foundation upon which to stand.

Today, "natural born" can mean one thing, and tomorrow it can be modified to mean something else. It's your twisty little worldview that is destroying our nation. The US Constitution is not a flexible rubber band, it is rigid and hard like steel, and cannot be bent or modified except by the most massive application of power; i.e. the Will of the States which form this Union.

Your view is a threat to our very existence.

LOL.

Minor v. Happersett didn’t define the term for the purposes of Presidential eligibility.
Actually, they did. This is directly from Minor

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President "

The court held Minor was a US Citizen because she met the Constitutional qualifications to be President.

Minor v. Happersett never stated that children born on US soil to non-citizen parents weren’t natural born citizens. In Minor v Happersett they explicitly DID state exactly that. The court states the following:

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
The court is explicitly stating that persons born within the US may be Citizens without reference to the citizenship of the parents. And that the 'first' class, natural born Citizens, are always citizens. The court EXPLICITLY states they are 2 separate classes of Citizens! All natural born Citizens are Citizens, but not all Citizens are natural born Citizens.

The comment in Minor v. Happersett was dicta, a total side comment unsupported by any authority whatsoever, and therefore of no value at all in setting any kind of precedent.

That is a 100% incorrect statement! In Lockwood Ex Parte the court says:

"In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizons of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.". Maybe you need to look up the legal definition of a "Holding".

Even if it had defined the term and set some precedent, that would’ve been overruled by US v. Wong Kim Ark, which discussed natural born citizenship for literally dozens of pages before finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

In US V Wong Kim Ark the SCOTUS CITES Minor v Happersett as precedent!

In WKA, the court says - "Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 166-168. The decision (once again notice the word 'decision', the court is using Minor as precedent) in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship." No ambiguity there! WKA picked up where Minor used judicial restraint. In WKA the court decided the meaning of the 14th amendment clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It never declares him a 'natural born Citizen'.

And no, they didn’t spell it out in the final proclamation. But the core reasoning clearly established that he was a natural born citizen.

LOL. That makes a lot of sense, courts, and lawyers, are always writing things ambiguously to allow others to later draw their own conclusions!

I think maybe you need to get some new talking points from you friends, and then come back!

I've mostly stopped reading your crap, because that's all it is.

You have stopped reading because you are belligerently ignorant and stubbornly intent on remaining that way. You don't care how destructive is your belief, nor whether it is true, you only care whether or not you can convince others to share your ignorance-induced delusion.

"Cruz was born to a parent, not parent(s). And the lesser one as well."

But this particular turd caught my eye.

Since most of what you post is some form of turd, I can understand your interest in all things "turdish", but of course this time you missed the mark.

Obviously you have no interest in addressing the actual point (That historically only the citizenship of the father mattered.) so you have to turn it into a fallacious ad hominem.

You are a one trick pony, and that trick is some form of fallacy.

You're an ass, and your fallacies have been demonstrated again and again.

Not by you, or anyone else to my knowledge. You put forth pathetic little pseudo arguments that a sophist would be ashamed of, then nearly break your arm patting yourself on the back for your perceived "victory", all while remaining completely oblivious to the fact that your attempt was laughably inadequate.

If I didn't care about the truth, I would've let you post your BS with impunity.

And your reasoning ability is still retarded. Non Sequitur.

You're the worst kind of troll. You troll incessantly, and then accuse those who post the truth of the exact crap that you yourself do.

You aren't posting the truth. You are posting utter crap that came out of the mouths of lawyers and judges who have no idea what the F*** they are talking about, and in the case of Rawle, had a very specific agenda which did not include the truth.

You quote Spanish Garbage collectors, French Valets, English Lawyers, and probably Chinese fishermen too. You know who you don't quote?

ANYBODY WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! You don't quote Delegates, You don't quote Founders (Except that one quote from Madison which you constantly misuse.) You don't quote anyone from any of the legislatures which ratified the document, all your sources are second hand hearsay.

You quote them because they say what you want said, and not because it's the truth, but because it agrees with what you want.

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.