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

Over the course of just two days, the Washington Post pounded its readers with 12 "birther" stories aimed at Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Headlines included, "Can Ted Cruz Run for President?", "Canadian Born Ted Cruz Releases Birth Certificate Amid Queries if He's Eligible for Presidential Run," "Ted Cruz: I am Not a Canadian," and "No, Ted Cruz "Birthers" are Not the Same as Obama Birthers":
**snip
Though there is no legal question as to Cruz's eligibility to run for president (Cruz was born an American citizen), the Post has spent the last 48 hours bedeviling the Hispanic senator with articles obviously meant to put him on defense and plant a seed of doubt in voters' minds.

The timing of the Post's assault is also curious. By accident or design, it dovetails perfectly with a widely criticized Daily Beast hit-piece on Cruz that also focuses on and questions Cruz's past and background.

Since being elected to the United States Senate in 2012, Cruz has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of President Obama and his signature healthcare plan, ObamaCare. The Washington Post has endorsed Obama for president, and frequently used its news and editorial pages to defend ObamaCare.

In the past, the Post has also launched crusades to destroy the careers of many Republicans, including US Senate candidate George Allen, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, presidential candidate Rick Perry, and current gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli -- among others. The Post's modus operandi is similar to what Cruz is currently facing: The Post floods the zone with stories critical of the Republican in an effort to undermine their candidacy through character assassination.

If what you wanted to believe was true, then there was no need for the 14th amendment.

Of course there was. There were a lot of people who denied that black people born in the United States were citizens by birth (or at all).

Heck the US Supreme Court had even commented that black people weren't citizens and couldn't BECOME citizens! All because of their RACE.

And THAT is why the 14th Amendment was passed,

As for Minor v. Happersett, that's been covered to the point of nausea. The case simply doesn't give any definition of natural born citizen. Even if it did, it wouldn't have been a precedent, because it wasn't on point for that case.

And even if it had been a precedent, it would've been overturned by Wong.

Speaking of which, the entire decision in Minor v. Happersett was completely overturned anyway by the NINETEENTH Amendment.

Look, I know I can't convince you of anything. You're a birther.

But I am telling you, and telling you true: You could hardly argue a more wrongheaded position if you were out there trying to convince people the earth is flat and not round.

I don’t think that the court has so ruled.

They did unanimously in Minor v. Happersett, which itself was affirmed unanimously in Luria v. United States.

The fact that Cruz was able through his mother to get a US passport is a fact against you.

Not at all. It only provides evidence that they were able to satisfy statutory requirements to obtain a passport, which itself doesn't require natural-born citizenship nor does it pertain to natural citizenship status.

Furthermore, why would the court even bother with an issue where the only clear-cut decision would be like that of John P. Altgeld, who was born to German parents in Germany?

What?? Why do you think has any bearing on presidential eligibility??

I think you forget the essentially political purpose of the Constitution. It is an instrument of government, not a statute, and the use of the term “natural-born,” or “native”, which is the word that Justice Storey employed, aimed at a political purpose, which was to debar the election of a foreign prince as chief magistrate, so as to secure the presidency as a republican office.

The NBC term wasn't just to prevent the election of a foreign prince. John Jay suggested it as a way to minimize the possibility of any foreign infiltration into this office. Justice Story's use of this term is consistent with what I've said:

... under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed 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 natural character as a citizen of that country.

Of course there was. There were a lot of people who denied that black people born in the United States were citizens by birth (or at all).

It wasn't just black people who were denied birth citizenship; Wong Kim Ark wasn't black.

Heck the US Supreme Court had even commented that black people weren't citizens and couldn't BECOME citizens! All because of their RACE.

All this proves is that what you want to believe wasn't true before the 14th amendment. Remember, your Rawle quote said "EVERY PERSON born within the United States ..." Obviously that wasn't true and you've just admitted it.

As for Minor v. Happersett, that's been covered to the point of nausea. The case simply doesn't give any definition of natural born citizen.

Actually it does: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens.

Even if it did, it wouldn't have been a precedent, because it wasn't on point for that case.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It cited Minor specifically in as precedent on presidential eligibility in Luria v. United States.

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. 162, 88 U. S. 165;

Speaking of which, the entire decision in Minor v. Happersett was completely overturned anyway by the NINETEENTH Amendment.

Nonsense. It certainly remedied women's inability to vote but it didn't affect the rest of the decision. Minor has been cited by the Court after the passage of the 19th amendment, even on the right of suffrage, such as in Rodruguez v. Popular Democratic Party in 1982:

However, this Court has often noted that the Constitution "does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one," Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 178 (1875)

Look, I know I can't convince you of anything. You're a birther.

Of course, now we get the typical "birther" copout. If this is so problematic for you, then why respond at all?

But I am telling you, and telling you true: You could hardly argue a more wrongheaded position if you were out there trying to convince people the earth is flat and not round.

Focus, dude. Nobody is making that argument nor anything close to it. Plus you completely dodged my earlier questions, which are of course, fatal to your arguments. If what you believed about Rawle is true, why does the Minor court unanimously rely on a citizenship definition that is based upon birth to citizen parents?? Why do they not simply accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen at birth?? What would be the need for talking about being born to parents who were citizens??

“There is absolutely no reason to think that he ever had a Certificate of Naturalization, because no one has ever proved that he ever lost his natural born citizenship. “

On Jan. 1, 1968, Barry Soetoro, Indonesian national, son of Lolo Soetoro, born in Honolulu, HI enrolled in a school run by the Catholic Church. Years later, Barack Hussein Obama II authored a book where the publisher described him as born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.

So you choose to ignore these facts and demand I publish proprietary, non-public information created and maintained by the State Department to prove Obama lost his NBC status. Furthermore, the State Department has precedent to withhold information and not comply with a U.S Court subpoena to reveal proprietary information if they deem it to be a national security matter. And they don’t have to prove its a national security matter to the Court, they just state they are not going to comply with the subpoena because its a national security matter.

The State of Hawaii is only authorized to maintain data and testify Obama was born in Hawaii. You assume Obama was born NBC because most, but not all, people born in the U.S. are NBC. But, you decide to take a leap of faith and demand anyone who claims Obama naturalized in 1983 to first demonstrate Obama is not NBC because the odds are overwhelming that he was born NBC.

Also, you choose to ignore the fact I sent the proof via UPS Next Day Air to Orly Taitz and she publicly announced I did not have proof and I was a citizen of Sweden and I worked for the State Department. None of this is true and none of it was sent to Orly. When I suggested the package was intercepted Obama operatives and replaced, I was ignored.

So, there we are. I’ll show up as a rebuttal witness in any Court to prove Obama naturalized in 1983 after the custodian of the DHS immigration records testifies Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization cannot be found or is unavailable. These are the rules of the Court. Rebuttal witnesses and their evidence are ignored until the custodian of the records has spoken under oath.

DHS has not set precedent for ignoring subpoenas for national security reasons. Consequently, pursuing Obama’s immigration records are the fastest and most reliable way of proving Obama is ineligible for POTUS.

It wasn't just black people who were denied birth citizenship; Wong Kim Ark wasn't black.

You're correct about that. But I think one thing you fail to note is that the treatment of Chinese people was inconsistent, and it was based on their race. Wong had previously been admitted to the United States by customs as a native-born American citizen, before they subsequently changed their policy and denied him entry.

Gee, did you ever notice how birthers, when they quote law, rely on some of the absolute worst Supreme Court decisions in history... those that were SUBSEQUENTLY COMPLETELY OVERTURNED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?

Let's see... at the moment you're relying on the infamous Dred Scott case, where Mr. Scott was declared by the Supreme Court to be nothing more than a piece of property, to be disposed of by his master however he willed. And that said that black people could NEVER become US citizens, simply because they were black.

Yeah, that's a great decision to based yours arguments on. Let's see. That was completely overturned by the 14th Amendment, wasn't it?

Oh yeah, and then there's... Minor v. Happersett. Women may be citizens, but that doesn't give 'em any right to vote. Yeah, women have no right to participate in the elective process, simply because they're women and not men.

What was that completely overturned by? Oh, yeah. The 19th Amendment.

Actually it does: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens.

No, that's not a DEFINITION. It's a STATEMENT that if you were born in the United States of citizen parents, then you were UNDOUBTEDLY a citizen.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It cited Minor specifically in as precedent on presidential eligibility in Luria v. United States.

Yes, but as your quote shows, they cited it ONLY TO SAY THAT NATURALIZED CITIZENS CAN'T BE PRESIDENT.

The Supreme Court has NEVER cited Minor v. Happersett to give a "definition" of "natural born citizen," because it doesn't give any such DEFINITION.

In fact, the Supreme Court DID cite Minor v. Happersett on citizenship. A couple of times.

But the purpose of THOSE citations was to say:

1) that the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" "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.", and

2) that the earlier Supreme Court was NOT committed to the view that children born here of alien parents weren't citizens.

So if you want to cite Minor v. Happersett, cite it for what the US Supreme Court actually DID cite the case for.

Of course, now we get the typical "birther" copout. If this is so problematic for you, then why respond at all?

Because I'm not going to just stand by and let birthers fill up FreeRepublic with Constitutional bullshit.

If what you believed about Rawle is true, why does the Minor court unanimously rely on a citizenship definition that is based upon birth to citizen parents??

I've already gone over this. The question is fallacious. We could go over it again, but it's a waste of time since you're completely married to the idea and there are no facts that could possibly change your mind. You're stuck on stupid.

Why do they not simply accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen at birth?? What would be the need for talking about being born to parents who were citizens??

All they said was that Virginia Minor was absolutely, without the slightest doubt a citizen of the United States. In essence they said, "Maybe she would even be a native citizen of the United States if had been born here of alien parents. But she wasn't, so we don't even need to talk about that. We know beyond any possible doubt that Virginia Minor is a citizen."

In your post to JW, You make (at the least) one glaring misread of WKA.

And we KNOW DEFINITIVELY from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that your misinterpretation of Rawle's commentary was not a common belief, otherwise, there would have been no need on the part of the government to deny Wong Kim Ark's birth citizenship — yet they did.

It was a common belief. What Rawle writes is in accord with, for example, the extensive discussion on the topic done by Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke.

And even the Wong Kim Ark decision admits by way of legal citation that the children of aliens were not considered to be citizens at birth prior to the 14th amendment because they were not subject to the jurisdiction.

Here's where your reading of WKA is simply wrong. J. Gray states exactly the opposite of what you assert:

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.

So the WKA Court makes explict that even prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment, (white) children of aliens parents were native (natural) born citizens. Was Rawle stating something different? Probably few readers would take his "all persons" to mean other than white persons. His readership, no doubt, was white. The ambiguity was perhaps intentional as it was not likely his purpose in that treatise to press the highly controversial race question.

In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey . . .

The comment in that case about children of slaves being like white children of aliens is obiter dicta, perhaps at most indicating one of those voices that made the matter "earnestly controverted." But the WKA Court makes clear, as I've quoted above, the better view was that children of (white) aliens were -- before the 14th Amendment -- native born citizens.

Here's my question to you. If what you believed about Rawle is true, why does the Minor court unanimously rely on a citizenship definition that is based upon birth to citizen parents?? Why do they not simply accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen at birth?? What would be the need for talking about being born to parents who were citizens??

Because Viriginia Minor's argument was that the by virtue of being a "citizen" as stated by 14th Amendment, she was entitled to the "privileges and immunities" of such citizenship, which she interpreted as including the privilege of voting. The Court analyzed the common law to show that Minor unquestionably was a citizen even before the 14A, and that such citizenship before did not include the inherent right to vote. Since the 14A was declaratory of existing law (as to white persons), her being a citizen under the 14A gave her no greater privileges than before.

So it's not that the Court stated she was NOT a 14th Amendment citizen; it simply affirmed that falling within the Amendment afforded her no greater right to vote than she had as a citizen under the common law.

Nothing was "completely overturned." I already showed you how this decision was cited dozens of years AFTER the amendment that allegedly overturned it.

Let's see... at the moment you're relying on the infamous Dred Scott case, where Mr. Scott was declared by the Supreme Court to be nothing more than a piece of property, to be disposed of by his master however he willed. And that said that black people could NEVER become US citizens, simply because they were black.

I didn't quote Dred Scott. Focus, Jeff.

Oh yeah, and then there's... Minor v. Happersett. Women may be citizens, but that doesn't give 'em any right to vote. Yeah, women have no right to participate in the elective process, simply because they're women and not men.

Again, I showed Minor being quoted favorably by the Supreme Court more than 100 years later. You're going have to do better, Jeff.

No, that's not a DEFINITION. It's a STATEMENT that if you were born in the United States of citizen parents, then you were UNDOUBTEDLY a citizen.

This is a DEFINITION. The STATEMENT is in the sentence immediately following that exclusively says of the definition, "These are the natives, or the natural-born citizens."

1) that the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" "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.", and

Wrong. Wong Kim Ark said this to interpret the 14th amendment, not natural-born citizen. This is the part immediately prior to what you quoted:

The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," also declares that " no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude." 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."

2) that the earlier Supreme Court was NOT committed to the view that children born here of alien parents weren't citizens.

That's not what it says. It says the certain members of the court didn't know the court would be committed to the view that all persons born in the country to citizens and born to subjects of foreign states would be EXCLUDED from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. The court is saying this because the earlier decisions only reviewed exclusions via the subject clause of the 14th amendment. When it cites Minor, the definition of NBC is not based on an exclusion of the subject clause. It's based on the idea that natural-born citizens don't need the birth clause of the 14th amendment to be citizens.

So if you want to cite Minor v. Happersett, cite it for what the US Supreme Court actually DID cite the case for.

The Supreme Court cited it as precedent on defining natural-born citizens as an exclusion to the 14th amendment, and then 15 years later the Supreme Court cited it as precedent on Article II eligibility:

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. 162, 88 U. S. 165;

The question isn't fallacious. You won't answer it because it you know the answer proves me right.

All they said was that Virginia Minor was absolutely, without the slightest doubt a citizen of the United States.

Yes, they did, and they exclusively characterized that class of citizenship as "natural-born," but the real question, which you haven't actually answered, is WHY?? In the decision, the Minor court says the question isn't limited just to those are "without the slighted doubt a citizen."

The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.

So ... one more time, Jeff, WHY would they characterize Virginia Minor's citizenship according to being born to citizen parents ... especially if what you wanted to believe about what Rawle and Bayard or anyone else has said is true?? Why would being born to a citizen parent make someone a citizen without the slightest doubt??

You must have a reading comprehension problem. I’m more than willing to appear, testify and show evidence of Obama’s 1983 naturalization as a U.S. citizen as a rebuttal witness. The Court ignores a rebuttal witness until the custodian of records has an opportunity to testify on the records in question.

We see this problem with many eligibility cases. The plaintiff demands records production to prove Obama is not eligible. The custodian of the records refuses to comply with a subpoena because compliance violates Obama’s right to privacy. The plaintiff goes online and complains of conspiracy, while Obots say proof of Obama’s ineligibility does not exist.

Proof of Obama’s ineligibility exists at U.S.C.I.S. It is where all Certificate of Naturalizations for naturalized citizens are stored. Like his birth certificate, Obama can fill out a short form and obtain a certified copy of his Certificate of Naturalization. Also, he can waive his right to privacy and post his Certificate of Naturalization online, like his birth certificate.

Here's where your reading of WKA is simply wrong. J. Gray states exactly the opposite of what you assert:

No,there's no question the court made the claim in this paragraph, but my point was the use of the citation that I gave was an admission that their claim wasn't true. Most people would call this a contradiction; and I'm pretty sure there are some other contradictions in this ruling. It is an extremely long decision, but Gray was trying to come up with a convincing way to override a treaty with China. He had to contradict one of his own earlier rulings as well, but we'll save that for another time.

The comment in that case about children of slaves being like white children of aliens is obiter dicta, perhaps at most indicating one of those voices that made the matter "earnestly controverted."

It's NOT obiter dicta. Gray cited this case because it used permanent domicil as the basis for trying to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Without that children of aliens would not have been presumed to be citizens, otherwise, there's no legal effect from talking about domicil.

But the WKA Court makes clear, as I've quoted above, the better view was that children of (white) aliens were -- before the 14th Amendment -- native born citizens.

Except that this is contradicted when the court talks about the case with Scotch parents. Simply being white aliens wasn't enough. They had to be domiciled in the U.S.

Because Viriginia Minor's argument was that the by virtue of being a "citizen" as stated by 14th Amendment, she was entitled to the "privileges and immunities" of such citizenship, which she interpreted as including the privilege of voting. The Court analyzed the common law to show that Minor unquestionably was a citizen even before the 14A, and that such citizenship before did not include the inherent right to vote. Since the 14A was declaratory of existing law (as to white persons), her being a citizen under the 14A gave her no greater privileges than before.

You're not addressing my actual question. Why are the citizen parents part of this definition?? I know why, and I'm betting you probably know why, but don't want to admit it. Second, you're ignoring a very important part of the Minor decision. They completely rejected the idea women have their citizenship conferred by the 14th amendment unless they are not already natural-born citizens.

The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. - - - The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.

The syllabus is perhaps even more explicit on this point.

... women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.

Now, Wong Kim Ark claims there was a fundamental, common law rule of citizenship by birth that doesn't require citizen parents. YOU claimed that the Minor decision reviewed common law to come up with its citizenship definition, EXCEPT this definition DOES hinge on birth to citizen parents. So why does the Minor court talk about citizen parents if not for how it distinguishes natural-born from those who would only be native-born?? What other reason is there for talking about citizen parents?? blockquote

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.