Sen. Ted Cruz Triumphs in 2016 Presidential Straw Poll: Wins Early GOP Vote Over Walker, Paul

The way you have framed the question - why, you're just bent way over backward trying to be fair about this, aren't you? ;-)

The Principles of English Subjectude are incompatible with the creation and existence of an Independent American state. The English version of "natural law" holds that allegiance to the Crown is everlasting.

Yes, i'd say that's being pretty fair to the Principles upon which British law is based.

.

To me and (I firmly believe) to most other ordinary people living now or living in the 18th century, the most natural construction to be given to the term "natural born citizen" is that it is the equivalent of citizen at birth.

I think I have suddenly realized what is the salient aspect of our difference of opinion. It boils down to Flexibility versus Rigidity.

I, and others like myself, believe the meanings expressed in our founding document are Cast-Iron Rigid. We believe that they cannot be changed by a simple act of congress, nor can they be changed by a declaration of a Judge. They can only be changed by resort to the Amendment Process to include ratification by the states, because a nation needs a rigid foundation upon which to base it's laws.

The contrary position is that our constitution is a "living" document, and it's words must be interpreted in light of the ever changing nature of society. As a consequence, Congress can change the definition of "natural born citizen" at it's whim, and courts can interpret it to mean that any sort of citizen is exactly like the explicit class of citizenship the founders desired to avoid foreign influence in the Executive.

So there it is. We the "Originalists" vs the "Living Constitutionalists."

I will point out though, that the "Living Constitution" position is the Liberal position.

.

So I am happy to report that I will join other ordinary citizens like Ted Cruz (Havard Law) and Ann Coulter (Michigan Law) in concluding that the Constitution does not forbid me from supporting Ted Cruz in 2016!

Funny you should mention Ann Coulter. She doesn't seem to agree with the idea that people should get citizenship from just being born in our country.

I think I have suddenly realized what is the salient aspect of our difference of opinion. It boils down to Flexibility versus Rigidity.

I think there is an issue of breadth that can (and should) be distinguished from flexibility.

Breadth; I interpret the NBC term to include more persons than you do. In that sense, I am interpreting it more broadly than you. You are interpreting the NBC term more broadly than someone who might require that both of a NBC's parents be citizens by birth or that all four grandparents be citizens.

Flexibility: The flexibility of a Constitutional provision concerns the degree to which the provision forces a future interpreter to make principled choices when applying the provision. The provision requiring that a Senator be 30 years old is much less flexible than the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Once a person's age in years is known, then people will more or less unanimously apply the age requirement in the same way. There will be much more disagreement between reasonable people as to whether a particular search is unreasonable even when everyone agrees to the facts surrounding the search. Those who drafted the Senate age requirement were not trying to create a standard that allows for much flexibility. Those who drafted the Fourth Amendment knew that they could not accomplish their purpose (protecting individual privacy) without affording future decision-makers a greater range of flexibility. And, that difference will explain why there are literally thousands of cases involving the reasonableness of searches under the Fourth Amendment and few (if any) cases involving the Senate's age requirement.

My Interpretation: My interpretation of the NBC clause to require only citizenship at birth indicates that I interpret the clause more broadly than you do. My interpretation is (I believe) rationally based upon my firm belief that ordinary people now and ordinary people in the 18th century would find that interpretation to be a more natural interpretation of the clause. I believe that my approach conforms to Justice Scalia's admonition (which I quoted in post 362).

Your Interpretation: Your more narrow interpretation is (I believe) rationally based upon your research and discovery indicating that some of the most influential folks in the founding generation looked to Vattel for guidance as to theories of citizenship (coupled with your English translation of his French text).

As I've said before, I'm not saying your interpretation is more right or wrong than mine. It's just more narrow.

Which has no relevance to whether they are correct or not, despite your strenuous effort to imply that it does. Judges do not become morons in dicta.

And your strawman argument persists. It is recognized that portions of an opinion central to the decision are likely written with greater care than the tangential points. The majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark, for example, discusses this.

And C.J. Marshall NEVER says that paragraph from Vattel was adopted or supplies the meaning of the Article II "natural born citizen."

Yes, the words "is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands" cannot possibly mean that he regard Vattel as the applicable standard.

But the standard for what? Marshall says Vattel is more explicit on "it" -- meaning the point at issue (domicile in an international law case). He doesn't claim Vattel has the least to say on domestic law matters. The Constititution isn't even in view in The Venus.

It simply wreaks of desperation because it requires ignorance regarding the concept of synonyms.

The larger point -- which you keep ducking -- is that nothing in his opinion suggests that any part of what C.J. Marshall quotes from Vattel supplies the meaning of any Constitutional term. Your quibble about synonyms is a smokescreen.

We only need turn to Justice Waite in "Minor v Happersett" to see that he explicitly equates the word "native" with "natural born citizen."

Is J. Waite also an Actual Authority? He didn't have direct ties to any Framer? Why is he being cited?

Oh, wait! Of course! It's be HE SAYS WORDS THAT YOU THINK SUPPORT YOU!

So in the Engineer's School of Legal Authorities we can see that "Actual Authority" means "Someone who utters words that DL likes," while "False Authority" means "someone who utters words DL doesn't like." It's an easy rule to learn.

Yes, J. Waite uses the term "native." So what? He also says that the case DIDN'T involve the question of a person born to an alien parent(s). When that question was before the Court they indicated that "native" includes persons in the U.S. to alien parents:

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (That opinion also cites C.J. Marshall in a case were Marshall was actually

And the Court also uses "native" in place of "natural born" when discussing presidential eligibility. Luria v. U.S."Native born" including BOTH children of citizens and children of aliens, both are thus indicated to be Article II eligible.

So, indeed, this equating of "native" with "natural born" is just one of MANY reasons why all these legal commentators, historians, and judges hold to a conclusion you don't.

Of course your next response is likely gonna be, "That's dicta, so we should ignore it."

Minor was a voting rights case that has been overturned by Constitutional amendment. The case didn't present the question of fhe birth status of someone born of an alien parent(s). Yet somehow you conclude this overturned decision didn't touch on that issue has some lingering import on a case involving chidren of aliens. But, of course, you think an international law case presenting the issue of domicile that didn't touch on the Constitution has relevance to a domestic case involving a Constitutional question.

Your thinking processes are so result-driven and muddled it is no small effort to unpack all the idiocy you stuff into a single post.

But I'll grant you this much. If what you have is the question of whether some born in the U.S. of citizen parents is a "natural born citizen," then Minor affords some analystical/precedential value. But if the question involves the status of someone born of alien parent(s) (e.g., Obama, Rubio, Jindal), Minor is but so much overturned irrelevancy.

b. Marshall had direct connections with several of the Constitutional framers.

Which might be a significant observation in a case where he's addressing a specific constitutional term. But in The Venus he doesn't make one peep about the Constitution, so your observation is just more irrelevancy.

You also ignore the fact that the very first two words he quotes from Vattel are "The citizens".

I don't ignore it. I merely place that in context by observing 1) C.J. Marshall doesn't indicate citizenship was at issue, whereas he does with domicile, 2) he doesn't at all discuss that citizenship passage from Vattel, whereas he does with the later domicile passage; and 3) most significantly, he doesn't in the least indicate there's any connection between what quotes from Vattel and the Constitution. So Marshall furnishes no proof whatsoever that the Article II "natural born citizen" has anything to do with Vattel.

You should stick to engineering; your attempts to discuss law are inept.

"Natural born Subject" is to "Natural Born Citizen" what "King" is to "President." Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

I pointed out that 1) in the early U.S. the terms "NBS" and "NBC" were in many cases used interchangeably, and, therefore, it's proper to understand the meaning of the latter in light of the understood meaning of the former, especially as to the means and scope of obtaining that status (i.e., birth circumstances) and 2) the early Americans used these terms interchangeably (e.g., Vermont Constitution of 1777) without thereby engaging in your silly notion that they must thereby have understood when they referred to their fellows as "natural born subjects" that they thought there was some "king of Vermont" having jurisdiction.

So your reply is simply to double-down on the silly and offer that same argument of a necessary "president - king."

You dodged my point entirely. Massachusetts DID use the terms NBC and NBS interchangeably. And the Vermont Constitution DID term the residents "natural born subjects." Though neither state spoke of the resisents having a "king."

And there is a point to this? They did have a King, and then they didn't. Subsequent referral to "subject" was custom and habit. Thomas Jefferson himself, while writing the Declaration of Independence, wrote the word "Subject", then rubbed it out and wrote the word "Citizen" over the top of it. Once again, you have some sort of point?

The point is that "natural born subject," insofar as who at birth attained to that status had a well-understood meaning. And that meaning, as to any concern regarding alien parents, was summarized by Blackstone, the undisputed foremost commentator on the Common Law ("The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. ")

And so (point as to "first principles" continuing) it defies logic to suppose a) that the Framers used the term "natural born citizen" to convey a previously-unused notion of "requiring two citizen parents," b) that they did so contrary to the previously accepted, interchangeable use of "natural born" by reference to "subject" and "citizen," and c) that they ascribed this "new" meaning to the English "natural born" while making absolutely no mention in the Constitutional debates or contemporaneous correspondence that is what they were doing.

So my point is that you are proposing an historically indefensible idea (certainly one that needs give way to the overwhelming counter evidence) and that the "argument from authority" you deride (excepting the far fewer authorities you favor) is easily explained and defended from the historical/legal record.

Anyone with intellectual honesty would recognize that the founders would vehemenently reject the philosophical basis for being a "Subject" as opposed to being a citizen.

And yet they used the term "natural born subject" as to themselves without the supposed "philosophical objection" you (in your manifestly last-principle, result-driven approach) project back to deny the fact I keep whalloping you across the the side of your denialist head.

Sir Michael Foster:

Nothing in what you quote from Foster negates in the least what I quoted from Blackstone, to wit: ".The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. "

So, again, you offer NOTHING to indicate that when in 1787 the Framers chose the term "natural born citizen" they understood "natural born" to require some different birth circumstance than "natural born" meant when modifying "subject." Zero. Zippo. Nada. The proof exists only in your head.

Your little group of deludees will simply argue that Blackstone's "generally speaking" qualifier obviously refers to the children of Ambassadors and such,

With good reason. Blackstone references "Calvin's Case," which set forth that rule with those exceptions. And the SCOTUS in WKA -- looking at multiple English authorities -- concluded the same.

It further ignores the point that the stratified English Society might have REFERRED to Native born Alien Children as "Natural Born Subjects" (Meaning The King has a claim on their servitude) but in practice they treated them quite differently from those born to English Parents, and they most certainly DID NOT allow them to rule England.

And in yet another chapter of "Consistency is Not DL's Strong-suit" you will in the next breath dismiss Rawles by asserting he was "too British trained." Amazing that Rawles was corrupted by too much English training yet got to the same jus soli rule for "natural born citizen" without any notion of some hierarchical, middle state.

It's a game of a Whack-a-Mole with you.

For Civil and Criminal law. For International law? (The only body of law which actually deals with citizenship.)

Here's where you flaunt your ineptitude on legal matters and broadcast it with trumpet fanfare.

Citizenship is a matter municipal (domestic) law! . ("municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired" See, e.g., Perkins v Elg.) I am aware of no exception stated by anyone at any time to the rule that every nation by its domestic law determines its citizenship. C.J. Marshall is citing to Vattel because he is an authority on international law. But citizenship is a matter not of international law, but of municipal law.

So see if you can grasp this:

1. Citizenship is a matter of domestic law.
2. Blackstone was the foremost authority on domestic common law.
3. Therefore, on the domestic law matter of the meaning of "natural born citizen," who does logic dictate is the authority? Blackstone? Or Vattel?

Here's a further help for you: Alexander Hamilton tells us "look to the law from where our Constitutional terms originate. That's England.

"NBC" and "NBS" were often used interchangeably in the pre-Framing period, and the terms on their face speak to a status via/at birth. Contrary to your STUPID insistence, it does not follow that they thereby had to insist on equivalency between "citizen" and "English subject" in every respect.

Au contraire, it is my insistence that they DID NOT insist on equivalency in every respect

Then you should give up the silly talk about "kings." The "birth status" rule was the same as between NBS and NBC, without the Americans having to import the full complement of ideas pertaining to "subjects."

But why did they use "natural born subject" if they understood NO lingusitic/legal connection to the English understanding of NBS? What else could they possibly have meant if not the same birth status rule? Again, this is another hole in your position that you attempt to toss up a bunch of flak to hide.

Stick to engineering.

Breadth; I interpret the NBC term to include more persons than you do. In that sense, I am interpreting it more broadly than you. You are interpreting the NBC term more broadly than someone who might require that both of a NBC's parents be citizens by birth or that all four grandparents be citizens.

I have never heard of anyone who has actually researched this topic suggesting that Grandparents had to be American Citizens. Only those people who have misunderstood the topic have opined such a thing, and they are a tiny minority, and unworthy of mention.

Flexibility: The flexibility of a Constitutional provision concerns the degree to which the provision forces a future interpreter to make principled choices when applying the provision.

Once again I must point out that strict constructionists do not favor flexibility in interpretation. As Thomas Jefferson said:

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

Permitting Congress to modify the meaning of "Natural born citizen" is tantamount to weakening the chains, and may render the intended protection of the article inoperative.

My Interpretation: My interpretation of the NBC clause to require only citizenship at birth indicates that I interpret the clause more broadly than you do.

No argument there. Foreign born to a Foreign Father is a very broad interpretation indeed, and one that could not exist at all but for a law Congress passed in 1934. Whatever it is, it isn't "Natural" as the founders saw it.

My interpretation is (I believe) rationally based upon my firm belief that ordinary people now and ordinary people in the 18th century would find that interpretation to be a more natural interpretation of the clause.

You suffer from a disconnected Zeitgeist. It might feel natural to modern minds, but it wouldn't have been regarded as "natural" at all in 1787. Born in a Foreign country to a Foreign father? By every understanding of the law (even the English Common Law) in 1787, that would have made you anything but an American.

Your Interpretation: Your more narrow interpretation is (I believe) rationally based upon your research and discovery indicating that some of the most influential folks in the founding generation looked to Vattel for guidance as to theories of citizenship (coupled with your English translation of his French text).

Not just research but logic. The dominant interpretation yields paradoxical history and nonsensical results in the Present. I'm sure I don't need to point out to you the steadily worsening problems of Anchor Babies and Birth Tourism, and I have repeatedly pointed out that the native born Children of British Loyalists were recognized by both sides as British, Slaves didn't become citizens until 1868 after they passed a SPECIAL LAW (14th Amendment) Recognizing them as such, and Indians did not become citizens until 1924 after another such special law was passed naturalizing them en masse.

The popular interpretation is simply incompatible with these actual historical events. The popular interpretation requires that the founders (and framers of the 14th) have no inkling of the abuses which would follow, and therefore they were short-sighted and/or foolish.

Logic dictates otherwise, and both George Will and Ann Coulter have written articles supporting this very conclusion.

As I've said before, I'm not saying your interpretation is more right or wrong than mine. It's just more narrow.

It better accomplish the purpose for which Article II was intended, as outlined in Jay's letter and as Written of in the Federalist Papers. You interpretation requires that Aldo Mario Bellei, who was stripped of his Citizenship, could have been President.

And your strawman argument persists. It is recognized that portions of an opinion central to the decision are likely written with greater care than the tangential points.

Which does not make the tangential points invalid, especially regarding something so fundamental as to what constitutes a citizen. You aren't going to sell this crap.

The majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark, for example, discusses this.

" And C.J. Marshall NEVER says that paragraph from Vattel was adopted or supplies the meaning of the Article II "natural born citizen."

So? Erroneous opinion is not restricted to you.

The larger point -- which you keep ducking -- is that nothing in his opinion suggests that any part of what C.J. Marshall quotes from Vattel supplies the meaning of any Constitutional term.

As a Delegate, and as someone who worked very closely with James Madison to secure the Ratification of the new Constitution in Virginia, His understanding is tantamount to it being a constitutional term. I note he isn't citing "Blackstone".

Your quibble about synonyms is a smokescreen.

No, your quibble about the absence of the term "Natural born" is a smokescreen, as is your quibble that the Chief Justice of the Supreme court doesn't know what the F*** he is talking about when writing dicta.

Is J. Waite also an Actual Authority? He didn't have direct ties to any Framer? Why is he being cited?

No, he's not an actual Authority, but he is the match of anyone your side has put forth so far. Given that his position was unanimous within the court, I would say even more so.

Oh, wait! Of course! It's be HE SAYS WORDS THAT YOU THINK SUPPORT YOU!

There's no "think" about it. The words unequivocally support a correct understanding of the topic. He explicitly says the 14th doesn't cover "natural born citizen", he then goes on to explain that "native" and "natural born" are synonyms, and that there are disputes among the Authorities, with YOUR position being the more dubious.

So in the Engineer's School of Legal Authorities we can see that "Actual Authority" means "Someone who utters words that DL likes," while "False Authority" means "someone who utters words DL doesn't like." It's an easy rule to learn.

For someone who falsely accuses others of using the strawman tactic, you seem to be an old hand at it yourself. Perhaps if you'd had some formal training in logic or something, you might have had the wit to realize your hypocrisy.

Yes, J. Waite uses the term "native." So what? He also says that the case DIDN'T involve the question of a person born to an alien parent(s).

Which is irrelevant to the fact that his opinion is correct anyway. Another smokescreen from you. Burning Strawmen tend to make a lot of that you know.

When that question was before the Court they indicated that "native" includes persons in the U.S. to alien parents:

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.U.S. v Wong Kim Ark

Here's that Snake eating it's tail again.

"Native" is redefined by the Wong Court to include those born to Alien Parents, and then you cite the Wong court to "Prove" that "Native" includes born to alien parents. Circular reasoning much?

You Also completely ignore that the court Invokes the 14th amendment as the governing law, and you further ignore that no "natural born" citizen has need of the 14th to BE a "natural citizen." You aren't very good at this reasoning stuff, are you?

And the Court also uses "native" in place of "natural born" when discussing presidential eligibility. Luria v. U.S.

Yes, and it explicitly cites the Minor v Happersett interpretation of the word "native."

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall.

"Native born" including BOTH children of citizens and children of aliens, both are thus indicated to be Article II eligible.

The word "Children" does not show up in a search of Luria v US. Neither does the word "Wong". Nothing in Luria supports your claim. As a matter of fact, Luria cites Minor v Happersett. Who are you trying to con with this crap? Are you simply lying, or just a complete ditz at research?

So, indeed, this equating of "native" with "natural born" is just one of MANY reasons why all these legal commentators, historians, and judges hold to a conclusion you don't.

You're an idiot. You've been caught, and you still trot out this pretentious arrogance. You're arrogant, but without any redeeming quality which should engender such arrogance.

Minor was a voting rights case that has been overturned by Constitutional amendment.

And here comes the smoke. Yeah, overturned by the 19th amendment about 45 years later. Both of your points are irrelevant crap which you throw out because you CANNOT MAKE ANY WORTHWHILE POINT. The Facts are not on your side, so you have to cloud the focus.

Your thinking processes are so result-driven and muddled it is no small effort to unpack all the idiocy you stuff into a single post.

Says the guy who cites "Luria" to prove the children of aliens were eligible for the Presidency.

But I'll grant you this much. If what you have is the question of whether some born in the U.S. of citizen parents is a "natural born citizen," then Minor affords some analystical/precedential value.

No No NO... it's "Dicta", remember? It is exactly wrong or something. At least in so far as "The World according to Captain Idiot" is concerned.

But if the question involves the status of someone born of alien parent(s) (e.g., Obama, Rubio, Jindal), Minor is but so much overturned irrelevancy.

Yes, the 19th amendment completely changed the Presidential eligibility requirements. More crap from "The World according to Captain Idiot."

Which might be a significant observation in a case where he's addressing a specific constitutional term. But in The Venus he doesn't make one peep about the Constitution, so your observation is just more irrelevancy.

Were you laughing when you typed this? I was laughing when I read it. At least you are entertaining. Reminds me of a little kid with a wooden sword thinking he's Peter Pan or something. Oh wait, I forget, you're the bumbling captain that had his leg torn off by a crocodile, and more recently his balls torn off by myself.

You should stick to engineering; your attempts to discuss law are inept.

Naw, it's the legal system itself which is inept. It has elevated the compounding of error into a religious doctrine, the consequences of which we see all around us. As for you, I do not doubt your contribution to either field would be pathetic.

He was born of an American citizen and that makes him a natural born American. He’s a rock soild conservative. And that is enough for me.

And I don’t care how many Democrat trolls they send here or anywhere else in an attempt to destroy a solid conservative AMERICAN. I like him and will probably support him.

Meh.

He was born of an American citizen and that makes him a natural born American.

He was born to an American citizen of legal age. The law which makes him a citizen doesn't apply if the mother is too young. Had his mother been 14 when he was born, he would not have been an American citizen.

I would assume that if wasn't an American citizen, he wouldn't be a "natural born citizen" either, but with some people it's hard to tell what they would think about that.

So how about you tell me? If his mother was 14 would he have been a "natural born citizen"?

And I don’t care how many Democrat trolls they send here or anywhere else in an attempt to destroy a solid conservative AMERICAN. I like him and will probably support him.

I like him too, and if he wins the nomination I will vote for him, (Why should we follow rules when the Democrats won't?) but this isn't about like or dislike, it's about truth or untruth.

It better accomplish the purpose for which Article II was intended, as outlined in Jay's letter and as Written of in the Federalist Papers. You interpretation requires that Aldo Mario Bellei, who was stripped of his Citizenship, could have been President.

Yes, the purpose is always important. I've heard that if we don't choose the narrowest imaginable construction for the NBC clause, all hell might break loose. "What if Putin gets elected?" "What if Prince Charles shows up, and then sweeps the electoral college?"

Well, I just think that my slightly broader interpretation (citizen at birth) will be adequate to fully protect us from strangers and will at the same time protect the eligibility of some very fine American candidates. Queen Camilla will not really be made less likely by your more narrow construction.

I hope that the GOP nominates Ted Cruz in 2016. Exactly one hundred years before that, in 1916, the GOP nominated Charles Evan Hughes, who came very close to beating President Woodrow Wilson that year. Hughes had previously been a Supreme Court justice. He was later appointed to be the Chief Justice by President Herbert Hoover, a Republican.

Cruz was born a United States citizen even though his father was a citizen of Cuba. Hughes was born a United States citizen even though his father was a British citizen. Chief Justice Hughes believed himself to be a "natural born citizen." Why shouldn't Ted Cruz (Harvard Law) believe the same? He's got a Chief Justice on his side!!

Exactly one hundred years! Why, I believe I sense the hand of God! ;-)

Which does not make the tangential points invalid, especially regarding something so fundamental as to what constitutes a citizen.

What makes your point invalid is the absence in the The Venus of any hint whatsoever that C.J. Marshall intended the inclusion of the paragraph from Vattel speaking of "natives" and "indigenes" to represent in any way Marshall's view that such related to the Article II meaning of "natural born citizen." It's not just one small step to get to that conclusion, it's one Giant Leap.

" And C.J. Marshall NEVER says that paragraph from Vattel was adopted or supplies the meaning of the Article II "natural born citizen."

So? Erroneous opinion is not restricted to you.

Huh?? This response is unintelligible. The point remains that you've got one large problem with out-of-context-proof-texting the minute you hold up that paragraph from an international law case about domicile and try to draw inferences from there about the meaning of a municipal law question involving citizenship. As I pointed out to you in my subsequent post (the one you brushed aside), "citizenship" is a matter of domestic (municipal law), not international law. Your confusion on this point is what leads you to make this out-of-context blunder.

As a Delegate, and as someone who worked very closely with James Madison to secure the Ratification of the new Constitution in Virginia, His understanding is tantamount to it being a constitutional term.

And you conclude this, notwithstanding there's not one peep about the Constitution in his opinion.. Riiiiiiiggggghhhhttt. Got it. That wave of the hand that cures all your logical gaps is rather convenient.

I note he isn't citing "Blackstone".

No surprise there. This is an international case, and Vattel was a recognized on authority on international law. Citizenship being a matter of domestic law, one would correspondingly expect when citizenship was THE question in the case, that Blackstone and other authoritites on domestic law would be consulted and Vattel would be ignored.

And that's EXACTLY what happened in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

No, he's not an actual Authority, but he is the match of anyone your side has put forth so far. Given that his position was unanimous within the court, I would say even more so.

All J. Waite says on the citizenship point is that a person such as Virginia Minor was unquestionably a "'natural born citizen." Hey, I agree with the point. He doesn't purport to answer the question "but is someone who has an alien parent(s) ALSO a "natural born citizen?" That question wasn't before him, and you can't infer an answer from an opinion that manifestly wasn't trying to answer that question.

The words unequivocally support a correct understanding of the topic.

Or more correctly stated, his words, interpreted to apply to a question J. Waite explicitly said he didn't need to answer in that case. support your pre-supposed, question-begging assumption of the "original meaning" of "natural born citizen."

He explicitly says the 14th doesn't cover "natural born citizen"

No, he doesn't. That's a poor paraphrase of what he actually says.

"Native" is redefined by the Wong Court to include those born to Alien Parents, and then you cite the Wong court to "Prove" that "Native" includes born to alien parents. Circular reasoning much?

Here's your question-begging methodology (a species of circular reasoning, Mr. Pot) at work again.

There is no redefining going on, since "native" had never previously been ascribed an exclusive definition. Here's "MvH and WKA for Dummies -- Executive Summary." Pay attention:

1. Minor v. Happersett asked the question "who shall be natural born citizens?" That case involved a person born in the U.S. to citizen parents, and the Court answered that question in the affirmative as to a person in Virginia Minor's situation. That case explicitly declined to answer that question as to person born of alien parents.
2. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark presented the situation which MvH stated it need not address, namely, the birth status of a person born in the U.S. to alien parents. WKA answered that such a person also is both a "native born" and "natural born citizen."

So WKA didn't redefine "native," because prior to WKA that term hadn't been presented or resolved as to person born of alien parents. (It had been at the state court level, e.g., Lynch v. Clarke (which answered that children of aliens are "NBC"), but not at the federal level).

You Also completely ignore that the court Invokes the 14th amendment as the governing law,

Right. The WKA court observes that as to "all white persons, at least" the rule was that children of alien parents born in the U.S. were "native born" citizens. The rule wasn't exactly being applied the same way as to children of black or Chinese parents. The 14th amendment corrected that.

But WKA traces the meaning of "born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction" by noting the common law origins of the phrase:

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." * * * The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

So, right there (and contrary to your repeated assertion) the Court explicitly links "natural born citizen" with the 14th Amendment 'born in the U.S.' language. And it indicates that the latter (the 14th Amendment) "defines" in part the meaning of the former (natural born citizen)!

The Court then resorts to "first principles" by employing (via Smith v. Alabama) the "Hamiltonian" view of Constitutional interpretation -- find the meaning of terms used by reference to English law:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

J. Gray then notes (Part II of the opintion) the what I've previously cited from Blackstone:

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

Then starting Part III J Gray observes:

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

This can ONLY mean (given that shortly after the Court states "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" to be "precisely analogous" terms) that the prevailing "rule" in the U.S. was that every child born of alien parents was a "natural born citizen." There is no plausible alternative reading here.

In Part IV the Court kicks Vattel and appeal to "international law" to the sidelines as inapposite to the domestic law question of citizenship. (Eventually, you may grasp this point if I repeat it enough.)

In Part V the Court demonstrates how "born in the U.S. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was a formal incorporation of the common law meaning of "natural born citizen" (same jus soli rule with the same exceptions, save for the addition of the additional case of Native Americans:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

So you are correct that the Court invokes the 14th Amendment as the governing law. But the Court also makes abundantly clear that "born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdition thereof" and "natural born citizen" mean the same thing! So by finding Mr. Wong to be a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment, the Court was indicating him to be a "natural born citizen." Chief Justice Fuller, writing in dissent, grasped this point.

So let fly "arrogant" and the many other bits of invective you hurl whenever your argument is dismantled. I'm right. Deal with it.

Meh.

I hope that the GOP nominates Ted Cruz in 2016. Exactly one hundred years before that, in 1916, the GOP nominated Charles Evan Hughes, who came very close to beating President Woodrow Wilson that year. Hughes had previously been a Supreme Court justice. He was later appointed to be the Chief Justice by President Herbert Hoover, a Republican.

Cruz was born a United States citizen even though his father was a citizen of Cuba. Hughes was born a United States citizen even though his father was a British citizen. Chief Justice Hughes believed himself to be a "natural born citizen." Why shouldn't Ted Cruz (Harvard Law) believe the same? He's got a Chief Justice on his side!!

Exactly one hundred years! Why, I believe I sense the hand of God! ;-)

You're reference to Charles Evan Hughes is rather serendipitous. Have you ever been introduced to this?

“Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?” Published in the “Chicago Legal News,” Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916

.

Written by this Princeton kook.

From page 7 of his article:

"It was originally proposed in the Constitutional Convention that the presidential qualifications be a 'citizen of the United States.' It was so reported to the Convention, by theCommittee which had it in charge, on the 22nd day of August, 1787. It was again referred to aCommittee, and the qualification clause was changed to read 'natural born citizen,'and was so reported out of Committee on September the 4th, 1787, and adopted in the Constitution."

Madison's notes for the two dates (August 22, September 4) seem to confirm Long's account. It seems strange that he never mentioned Vattel in the account.

I'd say you know more about this issue than Long did. ;-)

A link that works for Madison's notes.

It seems strange that he never mentioned Vattel in the account.

It is a fallacy to conclude that the failure to mention something is the equivalent of rejecting it. In looking up the link for the Breckenridge Long article, I happened across some commentary on it.

The commentary noted that Breckenridge Long had failed to mention Minor v Happersett, and therefore the Minor v Happersett case is irrelevant or trivial or something.

As I was reading through the article, I thought to myself, whoever wrote this has less reasoning skills than a monkey with their hand caught in a jar. I looked up the author's name. It was "Squeeke Frome", one of the silliest people i've ever encountered on Free Republic. (Now banned, and for good reason. She was a crackpot of the first order. )

The point is, you can't read too much in the absence of information. A failure to mention something does not preclude it's involvement.

As I mentioned before regarding language, the important aspect is the principle involved, not the language or in this case, the name of the guy who first thought of it. (Actually, Aristotle beat Vattel by thousands of years.)

Several other court cases use the Vattel definition but do not reference the name Vattel, or "law of nations." If it was regarded as American Common law (and Breckenridge Long seemed to think it was) then he didn't need to note it's origin.

Breckenridge Long asserts the citizenship principle of Vattel, whether he mentions the name or not.

Same thing with Madison. (See case of James McClure.)

When I noted that Long had failed to mention Vattel, it was not to suggest that he rejected it, but instead to suggest that his research was such that he probably never found it. That's why I suggested that you probably know more than he did about the subject.

Long was a Democrat, a partisan with political ambitions of his own. His motives for raising questions about the eligibility of the Republican nominee in an election year are probably no more complicated than that. But, then, maybe partisanship is the only reason that anyone has ever become interested in this NBC issue. ;-)

Believing as I do that the NBC standard is a constitutional standard to be applied by constitutionally-selected electors free from any interference by our national judicial or legislative branches, I don't look to the Congress or to the federal courts for authoritative guidance as to the precise meaning of the standard. The Supreme Court has never even considered overruling the decisions of electors. For good reasons, the justices limit their participation to just showing up for the inaugural celebrations and helping with the oaths of office.

When I noted that Long had failed to mention Vattel, it was not to suggest that he rejected it, but instead to suggest that his research was such that he probably never found it.

Well, according to the Supreme court in the case of UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION (1978)

The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel. 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826).

I decided to look up James Kent's book. (Jeff cites James Kent as one of his supporters, but then he cites EVERYONE as one of his supporters.) Kent does indeed seem to claim that Vattel was dominant during this era. (There are 34 references to Vattel in his book, and only 6 for Blackstone.)

I'm kinda thinking that it is a stretch to believe Breckenridge Long was not aware of Vattel. Once again, I can only conclude that he regarded knowledge of Vattel as so commonplace that he saw no need to mention it. This is no different from discussing a point of English law without mentioning Blackstone. Everyone already knows Blackstone is an authority.

Long was a Democrat, a partisan with political ambitions of his own. His motives for raising questions about the eligibility of the Republican nominee in an election year are probably no more complicated than that.

Assailing his motives does nothing to undercut his actual argument. Do you have a critique of his argument?

Believing as I do that the NBC standard is a constitutional standard to be applied by constitutionally-selected electors free from any interference by our national judicial or legislative branches, I don't look to the Congress or to the federal courts for authoritative guidance as to the precise meaning of the standard.

Electors are not constitutional scholars. The nation is ill served by having ignorant Electors, and those who ought to be responsible for informing the electors as to the correct requirements, are themselves misinformed due to a false conflation of the term "citizen" with "natural born citizen". This misinformation can be traced directly to the inimical effects of the badly interpreted precedent of the Wong Kim Ark decision.

Too many people have simply equated the Wong ruling as meaning "Born a citizen = "Natural citizen", when in fact, the Wong decision rests expressly on the power of the 14th amendment.

Once again, natural citizens existed prior to the 14th amendment, and have no need of it's existence to BE natural citizens. They are a distinct class from those citizens who are only citizens as a result of the 14th amendment. (Anchor Babies, and then only as a result of a defective interpretation of the 14th amendment.)

Do you have a critique of his argument?

He crystalizes his argument on page 8:

"If, with full knowledge of the meaning of the phrase 'natural born,' the framers of the Constitution used those words to express a certain idea and to necessitate a certain qualification, then their meaning is the law of the land. That they did use them is undoubted; that they knew what they were writing hardly seems possible to doubt, in view of the contemporary expressions on the subject and the actual change in the phraseology of the proposed constitution."

I think that his argument could be made more persuasive had he quoted the "contemporary expressions on the subject" that he claims compel his conclusion that "natural born citizen" means not just citizen at birth, but citizen born in the United States to two citizen parents. His Hamilton quote does not compel a construction as narrow as the construction proposed by Long.

More fundamentally, in the effort to determine the precise meaning of "natural born citizen," he believes that we should focus on the opinions of some of the drafters. I believe that Justice Scalia (as quoted in post 362) is correct when he points out that, when interpreting terms in the Constitution, our focus should be on the opinions "of ordinary citizens in the founding generation."

I believe that anyone who wanted to bind the ordinary citizens of our country with an extremely narrow definition of "natural born citizen" (requiring two citizen parents in addition to citizenship at birth) were under an obligation to describe the boundaries of that narrow definition in the text of the Constitution. What is written is important. What is not written is equally important.

I don't dispute that, if a person wants to conclude that the term "natural born citizen" requires two citizen parents, the person can construct a rational argument to support that conclusion. I'm saying only that neither the text nor the relevant history compels that conclusion and that if another person wants to conclude that a "natural born citizen" does not require two citizen parents, that person, too, can construct a rational argument to support that less constricted construction.

So, I don't think that the Republican Party was attempting to put an end to constitutional government or to install a usurper into the White House when they selected Charles Evan Hughes (whose father was not an American citizen) as their 1916 presidential nominee. I don't blame them for having ignored the very narrow definition proposed by Long.

**************************************************

Electors are not constitutional scholars.

Yeah, you're right about that (for the most part). Our founding generation did not establish a technocracy. Instead, it went for a "We, the people" plan.