Canadian-born Ted Cruz says “facts are clear” he’s eligible to be president

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ^ | 07/21/2013

[Ira_Louvin]

Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.

President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

That was great. Bookmarked.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ok, I'll ask him. And what makes your citation about Rawle dispositive of anything being argued on this thread?

Your comment points to message 619. I don't see any mention of Rawle in that comment. It is a bit hard to understand what it is you are asking without giving me a quote or something.

I have done quite a lot of research regarding Rawle. I made a great effort to determine how he came by his claim that English Common law underpinned our citizenship standard when it is so contradictory to the very principle of this Nation's independence, the actual history of our nation, and other evidence from more authoritative people.

At first I thought he (Rawle) was just ignorant of the depth to which the Vattel Revolution had swept the Colonies prior to and during the Revolution, and then I thought he was just stubborn, (I have an example of a court case where he refused to note an argument based on Vattel, though his co-counsel did. ) and then I thought he just might be misleading in a good cause (for the purpose of validating his arguments for ending slavery) and finally I concluded it is likely to be a bit of all three reasons.

Rawle has an outsized influence on subsequent opinions, not because he was in a position to know with certainty regarding the deliberations of the Delegates who discussed and voted on the wording for Article II, but because he wrote a book during a time when there were few law books available, and his book became very influential.

Rawle, is the BEST evidence those who would have us follow "British Common Law", have. He clearly sides with their position, and he was well respected during his life.

(And I'm perplexed why my moniker offends you so greatly. I didn't begin the personal attacks on this thread--and it appears that every one of your comments is rude in some fashion. Why the hypocrisy?)

I am thinking we have gotten off on the wrong foot. I am beginning to perceive that you are actually willing to look at the evidence, and not merely accept the prevailing opinion of the majority just because so many people say it is correct.

There is a massive herd mentality out there that want to take a certain position, not because they have researched it, not because it makes sense, but because there is a majority of people that keep telling them it is correct. (argumentum ad populum/numerum) People, such as myself, who argue the contrary position are constantly being attacked by such people, and the general rule of thumb is that MOST people are going to be against us, especially if they start off attacking us.

This makes us all a bit "trigger happy" because generally when you fire back, you're attacking someone of the contrary position. Reasonable people are simply so rare now.

If I have misjudged your objectivity, I apologize now. Objectivity is now also a rare trait.

[DiogenesLamp]

After Rawle died, his eulogy was published in a 45-page book. He was honored as a Christian gentleman of "the most devout and exemplary piety."

Of course, if you believe DiogenesLamp, he was a "liar."

Or the evidence.

This response is more for the purpose of providing salient information to 1rudeboy (and any other OBJECTIVE person) than you. You are just going to be my whipping boy in this narrative.

You will note that in his Eulogy to which you refer, that WILLIAM LEWIS was one of his Co-Counsel arguing that Case before the High Court of Errors and Appeals. (Which they lost)

Once again, I will point out that William Lewis

WAS a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature that Ratified the US Constitution. I will further point out that Samuel Roberts (the guy who published that book you hate regarding the English Statutes still in effect.) received his legal apprenticeship from WILLIAM LEWIS.

Lawyers taking on Apprentices was the Common practice for training new lawyers, during this era, and Samuel Roberts learned about American Law under the Auspices of William Lewis.

Given that it is inconceivable that Samuel Roberts could so badly have been led astray by his mentor regarding the Vattel-Natural-Law basis for American Citizenship, and given that William Lewis was in a far better position to know the ACCURATE understanding of the Legislators who ratified the US Constitution, and given that the same Principle is expressed in the Original Constitution of Pennsylvania created by Franklin, Wilson, et al, and given that the Position of William Lewis/Samuel Roberts/ Pennsylvania Constitution is so contrary to the position of William Rawle that the notion of a simple misunderstanding is highly improbable, the only remaining conclusion to which a reasonable person can come, is that William Rawle deliberately advocated a position that he knew to be contrary to better informed people.

In other words, he lied. Deliberately.

There is no way that Rawle could have missed that book Published by Samuel Roberts. There was no way ANYONE in the Legal Profession in Pennsylvania at that time could have been unfamiliar with the book "Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force in Pennsylvania".

Law books were exceedingly rare at this time (which is why Rawle wrote one himself) and that particular book by Roberts was the result of the Pennsylvania Legislature ORDERING THE SUPREME COURT to determine which English Statutes remained in effect in Pennsylvania.

There simply was not so much stuff going on in Pennsylvania that anyone in the Legal Profession could have missed the order by the Legislature, nor could they have missed the Report of the Judges. The book resulting from this was WIDELY Used in Pennsylvania for at least the next forty years after it was Published. (Second Edition, 1847)

So now, I think i've made a pretty good argument that William Rawle lied. (or deluded himself and thereby misled others) But the question remains why, in Jeff's words, "a Christian gentleman of "the most devout and exemplary piety", might LIE about the Vattel-Natural-Law basis for American citizenship.

Simple. The small evil of lying, is far outweighed by the potentially greater good to be obtained by doing so. Men eventually shed much blood to end slavery. What is lying compared to this?

The English Common law basis for Citizenship meant that slaves were "citizens", because they were born on our soil. The Principles of Vattel require that a citizen be the child of a citizen, something which puts a slave beyond any hope of this legal argument. If sufficient numbers of people could be convinced that the English rule is, and ought to be followed, the legal system would have to recognize slaves as "citizens" and thereby emancipate them. A similar strategy worked in the State of Massachusetts. Slavery was ended there when a court agreed with various plaintiff's that Slaves were entitled to the rights of a citizen.

It failed in Pennsylvania, and it failed unanimously. Those Judges that ruled against Rawle's lawsuit (mentioned in the Eulogy above) were Rawle's close personal friends and associates, and yet even that could not induce them to side with his position.

Rawle lied, but he lied in a good cause. His argument was never accepted though, and it took the 14th amendment to finally achieve the objective which he sought in making it.

[RegulatorCountry]

Of the British Statutes then in force andnpublished in this volume, were any pertaining to citizenship?

[4Zoltan]

In the case of Talbot v. Jansen - 3 U.S. 133 (1795), Justice Iredell in writing about expatriation said,

"This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this cause. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion, but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject."

"That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another, are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize."

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/133/case.html

Is citizenship based on "a particular spot" where a citizen first drew breath?

[DiogenesLamp]

Of the British Statutes then in force and published in this volume, were any pertaining to citizenship?

I believe two of them are. One deals with children born elsewhere, and the other deals with allowing the children of Aliens to inherit, I think. Children of Aliens were previously NOT PERMITTED TO INHERIT LAND in England, even if they were born there. (Once again, a rule that didn't apply to the Children of English Subjects.)

I cross checked these several months ago, so i'm not absolutely certain, but that's what I recall.

I think this is one of them.(Had it bookmarked)

This is a pretty good resource for finding British Law Statutes.

This is another.

[Jeff Winston]

I will further point out that Samuel Roberts (the guy who published that book you hate regarding the English Statutes still in effect.)

I don't hate Roberts' book. I think you're projecting your own emotional investment in a PARTICULAR outcome onto me.

It wouldn't matter to me whether the truth was A, or whether it was B.

The fact is, though, the truth is A. And if the truth is A, then that matters.

Telling the truth may not matter to you, but it matters to me.

So to the extent I have any feelings about Roberts' book at all, I think it's a generally good work done in order to answer a need that a particular guy recognized.

He saw a need, he took action to meet the need, that's entrepreneurship.

That doesn't mean it's perfect in every detail. That doesn't mean that Roberts was correct in his comment regarding the status of children of aliens born in the United States.

Because he wasn't. That's the simple fact.

His view, which is completely unsupported by anything other than his own opinion, is absolutely contradicted not only by Rawle but by virtually every other real authority ever to speak on the matter throughout United States history.

Once again we are back to the nature of birtherism.

Birthers reject every authority that doesn't agree with their claims (which is virtually all authorities who've ever spoken), and they lionize any authority, no matter how minor, who even seems to share their fringe point of view.

We see this again in your attempt to make Rawle, one of the most respected and authoritative figures of early American law, out to be a "liar."

This is a man who was extremely close to multiple core Founders. He knew at least 6 of the Signers of the Constitution. He was the consultant on immigration to Franklin's Society that met to prepare for our Constitutional Convention. He was universally praised for his character. And no one ever stood up and said he was wrong in his comments on citizenship.

And yet, according to you, Rawle was just a "liar."

...that particular book by Roberts was the result of the Pennsylvania Legislature ORDERING THE SUPREME COURT to determine which English Statutes remained in effect in Pennsylvania.

Yes, it was - in the sense that if the PA legislature hadn't ordered the PA Supreme Court to determine which English statutes remained in effect, Roberts would never have written his book.

But contrary to your repeated claims (birthers are never open to being corrected on the facts, are they?), if one reads the Preface, it's clear that the book was Roberts' own work. It was in no way represented as being done at the behest of, or even having the approval of, the PA Supreme Court.

In fact, if you read the Preface, Roberts presumes to know how the members of that court felt. This is a pretty good indication he wasn't in close contact with them regarding his work.

So once again, we are back to Roberts' opinion, unbacked by anything else.

One man expresses his opinion, another man expresses his. The two conflict.

You pick the one that you like and call the other man a liar.

I pick the man who was in the best position to know, and say the other man was well-intentioned, but simply didn't understand the law as well as his contemporary.

Which is only understandable. Because Roberts had no national authority, no national responsibility in regard to the law, and no known direct connection with the Founders or Framers at all. Rawle had all of these.

And Rawle wasn't the only one in such a position to know.

If he had been wrong, one of the other heavyweights would've corrected the matter. They didn't.

On the contrary, St. George Tucker noted that people born within a State were "natural born citizens" of that State - no mention whatsoever of their parents. It was irrelevant.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story noted that no principle was better established in the common law (and he referred here to the common law of both England and the Colonies and the United States) than that people born in a country, as long as their parents are there in obedience to that country (citizens or not), are born citizens:

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.

So all of the major authorities are in agreement.

Once again: You don't start with a theory of what you think the Founders and Framers "would have" done.

You look at the historical records and consider all the sources, to see WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID.

You give more weight to the more authoritative and credible sources of information, and less weight to the less authoritative and credible sources.

And you don't determine whether a man is credible by whether you like what he said.

You determine it by what his contemporaries thought of him, and by his position and responsibilities, and by the degree to which he was in a position to know, and by the authority that history accords him.

And then you adjust your CONCLUSIONS based on the weight of the evidence.

You don't start with your conclusion and then go through history declaring major authorities to be "liars" because they disagree with your pre-determined conclusion.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I will hereafter refrain from posting to you on any topic at FR. Don't post to me, don't ping me to your idiotic kneepad wearing servitude to the grand lie that is little barry bastard boy. Your little demigod racist, Barack Obama, is an obscenity to humankind in general and to America specifically. He is a liar, just like you.

LMBO...I was sooo looking forward to your response to that troll....I just knew it would be a good one and you surpassed even my own wildest expectations!!

[Jeff Winston]

DL is a cerebral narcissist.

This does not that he IS smarter than everyone else.

It means only that he, himself is CONVINCED that he is smarter than everyone else.

He can not present a single, major Conservative or Liberal legal or lawsuit oriented political action committee like the Heritage Foundation or the Landmark Legal Foundation which agrees with him.

He can not name a single elected official anywhere in the country who supports his idiotic legal theories.

He can not point to a single Judge, anywhere, who agrees with him.

He can not point to a single immigration attorney, ANYWHERE who agrees with him.

He has not one, single legal scholar on his side.

And, he will now tell you that I am making the “argument from authority” error in logic, huh?

What is law, if not OPINION?

And he has no respected opinion on his side, at all.

NONE!

That's pretty well put.

DL would of course point to Herb Titus, and possibly to one of the Justices in the Dred Scott case, to Samuel Roberts, to John Marshall, to Bushrod Washington, to John Bingham, and maybe to one or two others.

But as I've noted before, Herb Titus really enjoys no national stature. Even worse, he gives no detail at all for reaching his conclusion. NONE. No authority. NOTHING. He just states it as fact.

What it amounts to, then, is just his opinion.

The Justice in the Dred Scott case wasn't arguing the definition of natural born citizen, and was directly contradicted by another Justice of equal authority.

Samuel Roberts, like Herb Titus, was a guy of no national authority who was expressing his own opinion unbacked by any authority at all, and he was completely contradicted by all the heavyweights of his day.

Neither Marshall nor Washington said what DL claims, and Marshall actually very much seems to have affirmed the understanding in Bayard's book, which totally contradicts DL.

And as we've talked about many times, the words of John Bingham and our other legislators have been misunderstood and misrepresented by DL and other birthers. That becomes clear when you read the entire debates. By "subject to no foreign sovereignty," he did NOT mean what the birthers claim.

This is evident, for example, by another representative quoting Rawle's crystal clear statement while Bingham was in the room, and nobody, including Bingham, objecting in the slightest.

So on the whole, I'd say what you said was correct.

[Jeff Winston]

I think we need a poll of Freepers, anonymous of course, asking our opinions on “Natural Born Citizen.

One question should be, “Does Natural Born Citizen mean Citizen at the moment of Birth and nothing else?”

I am confident that the radical, crackpot birther theory would not represent a majority of Freeper opinion.

How in Sam H can we convince the country of anything, when after arguing this nonsense for over 6 years on FR, you birthers have NOT convinced a majority of Freepers?

I'd like to see such a poll.

[DiogenesLamp]

"That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another, are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize."

Is citizenship based on "a particular spot" where a citizen first drew breath?

"Citizenship" ought not be, (and I don't believe that American Federal citizenship ever was) but Subjugation *IS* based upon the "particular spot" where you first draw breath. Here is one Man's take on it in 1815.

.

What many of the English Law proponents fail to grasp is that the Law of the Soil deals with feudal-lord based claims from a King for his "subject's" servitude.

The Laws are couched in terms that make it seem as though the King is doing them a big favor by extending "His Protection" to them, and so therefore they should be grateful and have undying allegiance for him, but the reality was generally much uglier.

It was the rule of cattle, but applied to people. "Anything born on my land belongs to me."

As Alexander Mcleod put it after the War of 1812:

a scriptural view of the character, causes, and ends of the present war. By alexander mcleod, d.d. (1815)

[MamaTexan]

Telling the truth may not matter to you, but it matters to me.

So when did you plan on showing me this other *authority* you said Tucker 'approvingly quoted' in his work?

[Red Steel]

Of the British Statutes then in force andnpublished in this volume, were any pertaining to citizenship?

Speaking about British statutes in this subject, which are all naturalization laws.

The conflation of 'natural born' under natural law meaning the same as British natural born subjects. This is about as to the point as I have seen from a source of authority, Treatise on Citizenship. Here is conciseness that puts the kibosh on this myth:

As we see here, all of them in and out of the British dominion are put in the same basket as they are all proclaimed to be natural born subjects.

What's more "natural" than all persons are all naturally under kings? The way royalty thinks about everyone - your highness.

[Red Steel]

Note post #733.

[GregNH]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/3045592/posts?page=203#203

'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.

What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable".

The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.

The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320? CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens at birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, these are not really 'Citizens at birth', the are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz 'spokespeople' will always say 'by birth'), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.

That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'.

[4Zoltan]

Here is George Nicolas’ letter. The part that Tucker quoted is on page 7

http://archive.org/stream/letterfromgeorge00nichrich#page/8/mode/1up

[MamaTexan]

What's more "natural" than all persons are all naturally under kings? The way royalty thinks about everyone - your highness.

LOL!

[Kansas58]

Name ONE living Constitutional scholar who agrees with you.
Name ONE immigration attorney who agrees with you.
Name ONE public policy law center that agrees with you.
Name ONE elected official who agrees with you.
Name ONE legal professor who agrees with you.

Your theory is NONSENSE, it carries no weight at all. NOBODY of any importance has EVER agreed with you.

[MamaTexan]

Thanks for the link to the original. :-)

[Red Steel]

I've gone over Tucker/ Nicholas page 7 and it doesn't support their position. I transcribed some of it here:

"Prior to the adoption of the Constitution,the people inhabiting the different states might have been divided into two classes; natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens of such as were born out of it ....I say by the laws that were in force prior to their emigrating to the state; ..."

We see the letter refers to citizen laws 'prior' to the US Constitution acknowledging it was different times of course. Since the colonies were part of the British Empire, some independent state laws would reflect British traditional laws (Brit. common law) that everyone would be considered a 'natural born' ,if born in state, as I so pointed out in post #733 above, which is not the same as natural born citizens under natural law.

And we see that Nicholas brings up the state of Virginia that had another class called "denizens".

Moreover- "Virginia the privileges of alien friends depended on the constitution of each state, the acts of its legislature, and the common law; by these they were considered according to the time of their residence, and their having complied with certain requisites pointed out by those laws, either as denizens or naturalized citizens"

"As denizens, they were placed in a kind of middle state between aliens and natural born citizens; by naturalization, they were put exactly in the same conditions that they would have been, if they have been born within the state, except as far as was specially except by the laws of each state. The degree of privilege to which each class of aliens was entitled was different, but the claim of each to the privileges annexed by law to his classes was equally well established;"

In the state of Virgina, prior to the US Constitution, A "denizen" could be born in the state of Virginia, 'denizen by birth' and he would not be considered a natural born citizen.