Ted Cruz is going to New Hampshire. Will they like him?

Washington Post ^ | August 23 at 6:30 am | Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan

[SoConPubbie]

Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) is the hottest commodity in Republican politics these days, winning rave reviews everywhere he goes on the I

[SoConPubbie]

Not me. I regard Ron Paul as a complete nut. Wouldn't want him anywhere near the reigns of power. His son "Rand", is better, but still leaves me feeling a bit uneasy that he shares some of his father's Kookiness but manages to hide it.

I should have been more clear in that post.

What I meant, was those freepers who think that "Natural Law" means both parents have to be citizens at the time of birth.

English is prone to misunderstandings, vagueness, and wrong perceptions.

Mastering English, even for the "Natural Born" citizen, seems to be a life-time affair.

[Nero Germanicus]

I read it differently, “...shall be considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.” As I read it that means the Founders considered those born over the sae and outside the boundaries to belong in a single category. That category is NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

[DiogenesLamp]

What I meant, was those freepers who think that "Natural Law" means both parents have to be citizens at the time of birth.

I should have been more clear in that post.

I guess I didn't make myself clear either. *I* am one such of which you speak.

Split citizenship is NOT natural. It didn't exist prior to 1922, and was only created as a side-effect of the Cable act. Prior to 1922, Women were automatically naturalized to be the same citizenship as their husbands. Children of married parents were ALWAYS born to parents of the same nationality.

[DiogenesLamp]

I read it differently, “...shall be considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.” As I read it that means the Founders considered those born over the sae and outside the boundaries to belong in a single category. That category is NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

"Considered as" does not mean "is." An adopted child may be "considered as" a family member, but they are not actually related.

[Nero Germanicus]

No problem, Greg. Many people were fooled because there was an actual birth certificate posted on the Internet which said “Colon, Panama” but it was a forgery.
Senator McCain was fortunate that his mother was still alive for confirmation.

[Nero Germanicus]

“Is,” “as,” that’s just parsing of 19th century grammatical expression. The bottom line is “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.”

What I think we can all agree on is that what it doesn’t say is: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall NOT be considered as natural born Citizens.”

[Tau Food]

Yeah, that one’s real special. “An apple a day . . .” ;-)

[Tau Food]

Hmmmm. But, the correct answer is . . .
the electors decide whether a candidate is a natural born citizen!!!

The Founders trusted the electors
and I trust the Founders!

God Bless America.
God Bless the Founders.
And, God Bless the Electors!

[DiogenesLamp]

I think I've made clear my position on this particular point. Children born in foreign lands to American parent(S) in the service of our nation are Natural citizens.

Children born of parents with differing nationalities? Not so much. Such didn't exist in 1787.

[Tau Food]

I've said this since the first time I saw this claim about both parents being citizens. When the Constitution was drafted, it was often easy to identify the mother, but identifying the father was inherently speculative. And, I just don't think many folks back then thought we should design an eligibility standard that evades simple proof. Americans have always been a very practical people.

It's just another one of those reasons that I have for doubt about the "two citizen parents" requirement. The Jews have always known that maternity is more reliable than paternity.

And, I agree! ;-)

[Tau Food]

I guess that there is a risk that the Canadians might draft our president into the Canadian army.

Be sure to mention that risk when pitching your view of the NBC clause to voters and to their electors. And, don't you understate the likelihood of that risk when you tell them! ;-)

[DiogenesLamp]

I guess that there is a risk that the Canadians might draft our president into the Canadian army.

My point is, they CAN'T draft "natural born citizens." They have no claim on them. If the Canadians have a claim on them, they aren't natural citizens.

A man that can be compelled by foreign law to fight against his country is not a citizen who is free from foreign influence.

[DiogenesLamp]

And, I just don't think many folks back then thought we should design an eligibility standard that evades simple proof.

No proof required. Legally, the Husband of the marriage is ALWAYS the father. That *IS* a matter of English civil law which we kept.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hmmmm. But, the correct answer is . . . the electors decide whether a candidate is a natural born citizen!!!

Not really. They merely assume that he is, or else someone would have objected before it got to them. They merely operate with indifference as to what the term means.

[Tau Food]

A man that can be compelled by foreign law to fight against his country is not a citizen who is free from foreign influence.

Listen, at first blush it seems like a rather ambitious move for a country like Canada to attempt to draft the president of the United States. But, I have to confess that I have never given much thought to that possibility.

HOWEVER, someone recently turned me on to this treatise on The Law of Nations. It's by a Swiss guy named Vattel who wrote it in French. I'm wondering what Vattel might say about the propriety of one nation attempting to draft into its army the chief of state/head of government of another nation.

See what you can find on that. I will abide by any rule Vattel endorses! ;-)

[Tau Food]

No, you're right. In many of our states, there exist statutes just like that. Usually, the rule is framed in terms of a conclusive presumption that a child born during a marriage is the child of the father. The advent of DNA testing has shown that such statutes can create results that many folks find to be unjust.

Nevertheless, that rule is still the rule in many, many places. But, how can we force the U.S. government to adopt similar rules for purposes of its determinations of citizenship. I don't think they're required to follow state statutes and, even if they were, which state's statutes would prevail. Should NBC status depend upon what state the candidate was born in?

I think there are some holes in that analysis, parts we can't be sure were contemplated or intended back then. ;-)

[Nero Germanicus]

Yes, you’ve made your position clear.

[Jeff Winston]

This guy is just a flat-out, bald-faced liar.

His lies have been factually demonstrated and proven to be false again and again and again.

Why do we have to keep putting up with him here at FreeRepublic?

[Jeff Winston]

You keep saying CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL wasn't talking about "natural born citizen" when he quotes Vattel on "natives or indigenes", but you never answer the question as to what sort of citizen he WAS talking about.

I've answered the question MANY TIMES now, just like I've answered ALL of your bullshit many times now.

He wasn't talking about any definition of citizenship. That's obvious to anyone who carefully reads the case.

[Jim Robinson]

If Cruz decides to run and he’s the strongest conservative running, I’ll support him to the hilt!! And I’ll bet most of the tea party patriots will too!!

Cato Institute: Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3059031/posts

To hell with Tokyo Rove, the GOP-e, Chis Kristy, Jeb Bush or any other steenking RINO!!

If Cruz runs, FR is Cruz Country!!

Go, Cruz, GO!!