Washington Post Hits Ted Cruz With 12 'Birther' Stories In Two Days

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

“I guess that is still applies too, right?”

Should be “I guess that still applies too, right?

141 posted on 08/21/2013 1:45:22 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter

Actually, it's the democrats and the MSM, with the idiot aid of a few pharasaical birthers who want to force this issue.......

You can rail against Cruz all you want, but very few conservatives here or anywhere will follow.

142 posted on 08/21/2013 1:46:27 PM PDT by Lakeshark (KILL THE BILL! CALL. FAX. WRITE)

"The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on natural born citizenship as you seem to imply. Never. Go ahead and disprove the above statement....."

How did I imply that? At the very top of the post it states:

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

cit·ed cit·ing Definition of CITE

1 : to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a court)

2 : to quote by way of example, authority, or proof

3 a : to refer to; especially : to mention formally in commendation or praise

b : to name in a citation

4 : to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an example, proof, or precedent

143 posted on 08/21/2013 1:52:09 PM PDT by Godebert

See, I was right, glad you agree. The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on natural born citizenship.

Which makes the seond quote I gave you even more germane:

Not one significant authority in the entirety of United States history, conservative, liberal or otherwise, has EVER interpreted the Constitution the way that birthers do. Not one single significant legal or historical authority has EVER given "natural born citizen" the meaning they give it. Not one single bona-fine published textbook in American history has EVER said that it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. There's no real legal or historical argument here at all. Not among the people who deal professionally with either history or law. The ONLY people making this claim are a bunch of people on the internet who have little understanding of either history or law, but insist that they do.

144 posted on 08/21/2013 1:55:45 PM PDT by Lakeshark (KILL THE BILL! CALL. FAX. WRITE)

What’s right is right, regardless of your political affiliation. I say SCOTUS should make a ruling and we should ALL live by it, although it’s a bit late to do anything about the current POTUS.

145 posted on 08/21/2013 1:56:19 PM PDT by jda ("Righteousness exalts a nation . . .")

Again, that quote is easily disproved by the following:

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. 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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

146 posted on 08/21/2013 2:00:01 PM PDT by Godebert

There's no railing in that post of mine. Simply stating the facts (aside from the last sentence).

147 posted on 08/21/2013 2:03:07 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))

For your consideration:
From the U.S. government’s brief in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898):
“Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?” If so, then verily there has been a most degenerative departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”

http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/AppellantsBrief.pdf
The Government (Appellant) Brief: US v Wong Kim Ark (page 18 of 20 of the pdf) Page 34 of the original

From the Supreme Court’s majority decision in U.S. v. Womg Kim Ark:
[An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
‘Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’

and

…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.

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.”

Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)

It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen…

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

“And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law….

The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,”

Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the Brooklyn section of New York City in 1907 to two Swedish parents who had arrived in the United States some time prior to 1906; her father was naturalized in 1906. In 1911, her mother took the four-year-old to Sweden; her father went to Sweden in 1922, and in 1934 made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had “voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.”
In 1929, within eight months of attaining the age of majority, Marie Elg obtained an American passport through the American consul in Sweden, and returned to the United States. In 1935 she was notified by the U.S. Department of Labor that she was an illegal alien and was threatened with deportation.
Elg sued to establish that she was a citizen of the United States and not subject to deportation. Frances Perkins was listed as the nominal plaintiff in the case, being the Secretary of Labor during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, when the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Here the US Supreme Court equates citizenship by birth with natural born citizenship:
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884):
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”

148 posted on 08/21/2013 2:03:38 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus

To: Jeff Winston

If you go back and look at the very first response I gave to your "Bayard" argument, you will find that it is just as appropriate now as it was THE VERY FIRST TIME I TOLD YOU.

This is what you do Jeff. You just keep making the same ridiculous claims over and over again, and obliging the rest of us to keep knocking them down over and over and over again. I should just start writing boiler plate rebuttals of your CONSTANT fallacies and false equivalences. Perhaps I could get it so simple as to simply refer to the relevant rebuttal by number.

Not only was Bayard's grandfather, Richard Bassett, United States Senator #1 and one of the 39 Delegates who Signed the Constitution, James Bayard's FATHER was known to his peers in Congress as "HIGH PRIEST OF THE CONSTITUTION."

So the notion that the FATHER had to be a citizen is even more strongly reinforced then, isn't it?

Once more for all you silly @$$E$, If a Foreign Father cannot make a child born here into a citizen WITHIN THIS VERY COUNTRY, how will he be able to do so in a FOREIGN COUNTRY?

United States Secretary of State Thomas F Bayard.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

149 posted on 08/21/2013 2:12:00 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)

Another quote for you to disprove:

"Not one significant authority in the entirety of United States history, conservative, liberal or otherwise, has EVER interpreted the Constitution the way that birthers do. Not one single significant legal or historical authority has EVER given "natural born citizen" the meaning they give it. Not one single bona-fine published textbook in American history has EVER said that it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. There's no real legal or historical argument here at all. Not among the people who deal professionally with either history or law. The ONLY people making this claim are a bunch of people on the internet who have little understanding of either history or law, but insist that they do."

That's easy. That idiot Jeff wrote it, so it's wrong on the face of it.

150 posted on 08/21/2013 2:16:06 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)

Which makes the seond quote I gave you even more germane:

No it doesn't. It's still written by that Idiot, and it's still idiocy, though i'm not surprised to see you find it significant somehow.

151 posted on 08/21/2013 2:17:39 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)

You believe what you want to believe.

And until birthers can find a single textbook citation that defines NBC as requiring two citizen parents, I'll continue to believe that those claiming they were taught this in school are full of crap.

152 posted on 08/21/2013 2:19:52 PM PDT by Drew68 (Cruz '16)

""Not one significant authority in the entirety of United States history, conservative, liberal or otherwise, has EVER interpreted the Constitution the way that birthers do. Not one single significant legal or historical authority has EVER given "natural born citizen" the meaning they give it. Not one single bona-fine published textbook in American history has EVER said that it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. There's no real legal or historical argument here at all. Not among the people who deal professionally with either history or law. The ONLY people making this claim are a bunch of people on the internet who have little understanding of either history or law, but insist that they do." "

You really don't believe this, do you?

Know who Representative Bingham (of Ohio) was and what he said on this issue? Do you think Rep Bingham was insignificant?

153 posted on 08/21/2013 2:23:44 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))

To: cripplecreek

I’m a birther and I’ll vote for him based on the fact that he’s a better constitutionalist than 95% of the country.

I'm a "birther" too and I'll vote for Cruz just to rub leftists' noses in the Obama precedent.

154 posted on 08/21/2013 2:26:16 PM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))

To: Nero Germanicus

I will respond to this as time permits.

Firstly, Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)

This was a ninth circuit case reversed by the Supreme Court.

From your post:

Now let's take a look at the full text without the chopped sentence:

But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909 as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California.

Context can be everything.

Kwock Jan Fat v. White - 253 U.S. 454 (1920)

155 posted on 08/21/2013 2:40:07 PM PDT by Godebert

To: Jeff Winston; xzins

... and that is the case with all the children of citizens ...

Do you think it's possible that when Bayard wrote the word "citizens", i.e., plural, he meant both parents have to be citizens, and not just one?

156 posted on 08/21/2013 3:16:47 PM PDT by mellow velo (Oxymorons: jumbo shrimp, rap music, liberal think-tank)

Plummz:” This is false. Hamilton proposed the Presidential qualification that he be a “born citizen,” but this was rejected by the founders in favor of John Jay’s reccommendation that the President be only a natural born citizen.

Please stop lying about our Founding Fathers. “

Sorry Plummz, but you are mistaken. You are either born a citizen and eligible, or are naturalized and are not.

Minor V Happersett
“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 [n6] 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,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

Clear as day, if you are born a citizen you are eligible.

157 posted on 08/21/2013 3:19:34 PM PDT by JimMcW

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html

There’s just a few reference materials that cover it. Also, may I add

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

“The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

No parental requirement there

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

Nope, no parental requirement there either

Check out the book list I gave you, there’s plenty of other examples.

158 posted on 08/21/2013 3:19:34 PM PDT by JimMcW

jda: “What’s right is right, regardless of your political affiliation. I say SCOTUS should make a ruling and we should ALL live by it, although it’s a bit late to do anything about the current POTUS.”

Actually, they have ruled over 100 years ago and we’ve been following it ever since. Certain people want to ignore it, but the courts won’t.

159 posted on 08/21/2013 3:19:34 PM PDT by JimMcW

This is false. Hamilton proposed the Presidential qualification that he be a "born citizen," but this was rejected by the founders in favor of John Jay's reccommendation that the President be only a natural born citizen.

Please stop lying about our Founding Fathers.

This is another FALSE birther meme.

Hamilton's wording was never "rejected," for the simple reason that IT WAS NEVER PLACED BEFORE THE DELEGATES OF THE CONSITUTIONAL CONVENTION AT ALL.

He made PERSONAL NOTES of the kind of Constitution he wanted. Among those notes he wrote that he wanted the President to be born a citizen.

He got a lot of what he wanted. His private notes were handed to James Madison at the end of the Convention.

THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT HAMILTON'S "BORN A CITIZEN" AND JOHN JAY'S "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" MEANT ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

In fact, there were 55 Delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Only TWO men proposed a birth qualification for President.

John Jay, who wasn't at the Convention, and Alexander Hamilton, who was.

Why those two and nobody else?

Guess what.

John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were personal friends and close working associates who lived in the same city, and who actively worked together both before and after the Convention. In fact, Hamilton was the major author of The Federalist (also known as "the Federalist Papers"), which was instrumental in convincing the people of the key State of New York to actually adopt the Constitution.

He was assisted in this task by... John Jay and James Madison.

160 posted on 08/21/2013 3:50:14 PM PDT by Jeff Winston (Yeah, I think I could go with Cruz in 2016.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794