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

[Jim Noble]

It’s possible he will do well here.

It’s a very funny state.

[Tau Food]

Oh? And, who decides whether a candidate is a natural born citizen?

You - -
or the electors who choose our presidents. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.)

[FreeReign]

Cruz's mother was born an American citizen, a daughter of Uncle Sam. Like apple trees can produce only apples, Cruz's mother could produce only American citizens. This is called natural law.

Yes, it does seem pretty unnatural for a patriotic citizen parent to give birth to a child and not have that child be a NBC.

[Tau Food]

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

I hardly noticed your vicious attack on natural law.

You can plant an apple tree in the middle of an orchard of oranges and it will still produce only apples, not oranges. That is the nature of an apple tree, and it is unchangeable.

Of course, the same goes for people. Ted Cruz's mother was an American citizen made in the USA. Even in the middle of a Canadian orchard, she could produce only a thoroughly American son.

Ted Cruz - 2016

[Tau Food]

Yes, it does seem pretty unnatural for a patriotic citizen parent to give birth to a child and not have that child be a NBC.

Under nature's laws, there is no other possibility! ;-)

Ted Cruz - 2016

[riri]

I love the guy and I want nothing more than for him to gain momentum.

However, the powers that be will NEVER allow him to gain too much traction. No matter what they gotta do to stop it.

[WhiskeyX]

“This is called natural law.”

That is a totally false analogy.

Among patrilineal cultures for thousands of years, the child’s citizenship was determined by the father’s citizenship, because the mother’s citizenship was also determined by her husband’s citizenship. This was the basis for the Roman laws and jus sanguinis. When some jurisdictions adopted jus soli as a principle of law to determine citizenship on the basis of the place of birth, there arose a conflict between the claims of competing jurisdictions. Under the principles of natural law a sovereign jurisdiction could perpetuate itslef without the manmade enactments of statutory laws or codification of manmade common-law only when the child is born in a circumstance where the citizenship of the natural parents are no different than the jurisdiction that is the plae of birth or the jurisdiction that is the place of birth claims no obligations of allegiance upon the child at birth. In these circumstances the child is a natural born citizen because no other sovereign is in a position to claim the allegiance and obligation from the child but that of the natural parents having the same citizenship.

When the traditional relationship between the husband and wife occurred with the emancipation of women and redognition of citizenship aprt from the husband or male guardian, there arose a new circumstance under which the mother of the child could have a citizenship different from the father of the child. This circumstance then required a manmade and therefore unnatural law and a statutory law to determine which of two or more sovereigns would be determined by a manmade act and not a natural occurrence to be the child’s citizenship. If the child were truly a natural born citizen, there could only be one possible citizenship and sovereign. The very fact there can be more than one possible choice of citizenship immediately indicates the child cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of any state, because a manmade law had to used to determine which of the citizenships would become effective.

Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canad with a father who was a Cuban citizen, a mother who was a U.S. citizen with authority to confer her U.S. citizenship to her child only when qualified by the U.S. statute of law. Since a child is a natural born citizen only in the absence of a manmade statute of law to authorize the citizenship, the U.S. statutory law authorizing his U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother disqualified him as a natural born citizen by definition.

[FreeReign]

Yes, it does seem pretty unnatural for a patriotic citizen parent to give birth to a child and not have that child be a NBC.

Under nature's laws, there is no other possibility! ;-)

And I would also add that during the time of our founders (because of the automatic citizenship of the wife) there was no other outcome.

[Tau Food]

Among patrilineal cultures for thousands of years, the child’s citizenship was determined by the father’s citizenship,

Baloney. Under the laws of nature, we have always known the identity of the mother. The father - not so much.

If you should find an orange lying beneath an apple tree, don't blame the apple tree!

Ted Cruz - 2016

[FreeReign]

Cut and paste without giving attribution much?

Try using your own words instead of repeating somebody else's. There are reasons to do that.

[Tau Food]

It appears that God agrees.

[WhiskeyX]

I don’t know where you’ve been, but you are talking to someone who has for many years been debating the finer details of the natural born citizen controversy. Frankly, I don’t have enough hours in the day for the coming years to go back to the basics and haggle endlessly over them with folks who have no intention of even considering the merits of the controversy. The very fact you would suggest it is necessary to quote a definition for a phrase of natural law directly in the Constitutiion is an indication you cannot be taken seriously. The Frramers did not go around defining the laws of nature in the Constitution. Natural law was observed to exist as it was recognized in llegal treatises, coomon-laws embracing the natural law principles, and in court decisions incorporating statements of natural law.

The are numerous Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision describing the application of the natural born citizen, all of which have been discussed as infinitum on Freerepublic. I’m certainly not going to spend hours gathering them together for the purpose of this simple post. If you so desire, you can look them up yourself and we can debate the merits on the respective threads discussing thos specific cases.

Yopu might also consult the various legal dictionaries and general purpose dictionaries to see their definitions for such terms as “natural”, “natural parents”, and so forth. When you do so, please note how the definitions are careful to note how natural law is the opposite of manmade statutory law. Sir edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 cited earlier authorities to note how manmade law “datus” made a subject, whereas natural law resulted in a subject born “natus” by nature of the birth in the absence of a manmade act. Calvin’s Case 1608 is of course not the only such sources of the practice of determining natural born citizenship solely in the absence of “datus” statutory laws. In other words, the condescending scorn is wholly inappropriate and entirely unproductive.

If you want to debate the issue sensibly, then debate the specific elements of disagreement. Leave the ridicule and scorn at home. Such behavior will be entirely unimpressive.

Anyone who wants to be prsusive will need to explain how an unnatural manmade law, a statutory law, or the enactment of a public law can be anything other than the exact opposite of a natural law and the opposite of a natural born citizen.
As matters stand now such an endeavor appears to me tantamount to Bill Clinton trying to persuade the court that Fellatio or oral sex is not oral sex.

[SoConPubbie]

If you want to debate the issue sensibly, then debate the specific elements of disagreement. Leave the ridicule and scorn at home. Such behavior will be entirely unimpressive.

So, you can't provide any evidence from the US Constitution, Laws passed by Congress or Rulings by the Supreme Court, right?

Maybe a better approach than stating emphatically and declaratively that someone is not eligible based on YOUR interpretation of supporting documents and the thought processes of the Founders, instead of what they chose to write down in the Constitution, might be to state that it is something that needs to be clarified by Congress and the Supreme Court.

But let's be clear, according to US Law and the US Constitution, as of today, Ted Cruz is eligible to be POTUS.

[Tau Food]

The are numerous Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision describing the application of the natural born citizen

Oh? And, who decides whether a candidate is a natural born citizen?

You - -
the Supreme Court - -
or the electors who choose our presidents. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.)

[ReformationFan]

Indeed.

[WhiskeyX]

That is why your analogy was so utterly false...among many other reasons. The identity of the mother is not the subject matter being addressed by the application of natural law. In a patrilineal culture, the mother is the chattel or property of a husband, who is her master and guardian. In the patrileneal culture, the husband and master possesses the woman in part to produce his heirs and forge alliances among other families, clans, tribes, and nations. The wife had to take her husband’s and master’s citizenship to preserve the duty of obediance and loyalty to the husband, the husband’s family, the clan, the tribe, and so forth.

Of course,m if you really want the example of a matrileneal culture, take the Polynesians for example. Ownership and inheritance of property were through the female lineage only. The heir was the daughter. When the Mother produced only sons, she had no heir available to whom the estate and the civil power could be bequethed for inheritance. This problem was remedied by the expedient of taking one of her male sons and naturalizing him at birth as a daughter. He was required to be “considered as” a female and the daughter of the mother, inheriting the mothers civil powers and properties. Surely you did not intend to define such a daughter as a natural born daughter?

[Tau Food]

the mother is the chattel or property of a husband, who is her master and guardian.

I understand you have an argument, everyone does.

So, in 2016, you're going to argue that the voters and their electors should deem Ted Cruz to be not a "natural born citizen" and thus ineligible to be president because his American mother was the chattel property of his father, a Cuban. Well, good luck with that one. Anyone who has ever seen a rerun of I Love Lucy is going to find that argument to be humorous, but incorrect.

And, what will be your pitch to Jewish voters?

I'm not saying you shouldn't come up with whatever precise NBC definition you wish to assist you in voting, but the rest of us are equally entitled to do the same. Expect at least some small variations in opinions. ;-)

[WhiskeyX]

That is the heart of the problem right now. The Democrats with the complicity of the Republicans have been steadily dismantling the apparatus provided to the Citizens in the Constitution for the enforcement of such provisions in the Constitution. These avenues are too manyto dertail in this forum, but examples range from the popular election of the President instead of by Electors, to popular elections of the Senators instead of the State legislatures to the destruction of the popular Federal Grand Jury and the SCOTUS 20th Century establishment of the unconstitutional standing doctrine in court procedure. In combination, these and many other measures such as fxing the maximum number of Congressmen in the House of Representatives have served to wrest the power to try and punish violations of the Constitution away from the Citizsens and put those powers in the hand so fan elite seeking impunity for the unconstitutional acts.

The battle over the natural born citizen clause is only just one facet among hundreds where these erosions of Citizen powers has had consequences today. Note ho in the last decade to two decades Democrats and Republicans in the Congress attempted to introduce bills which would amend the Constitution to remove the natural born citizen clause from the Constitution. It should be observed how there would have been absolutely no need whatsoever to introduce bills for such legislation if the natural born citizen was synonymous with citizen born as they falsely claim. Note lso how the SCOTUS and the Executive would be different today had the natural born citizen clause been enforced as they feared when they failed to get the votes to remove the natural born citizen clause with a Constitutional Amendment.

[Tau Food]

Well, I think the NBC clause (coupled with the residency clause) has an obvious purpose - to ensure that presidents are selected from a pool of candidates who have political connections to the United States through heritage and experience. That is a good thing. Unnecessarily limiting the pool of available candidates to exclude candidates who were citizens at birth and who have spent their lives in this country does not further the purpose of that provision.

So, if your argument for such an unnecessarily narrow and precise definition requires that we learn French and study eighteenth century Swiss philosophy to understand what you're talking about, you're precise and narrow definition is in trouble. The people of this country don't fear that they might elect Prince Charles to be our president.

Ted Cruz is as American as any of us!

Ted Cruz - 2016

[WhiskeyX]

Don’t be ridiculous. I was only explaining the origins and usages of the legal concepts. The United States emancipated women and later granted women theright to retain their U.S. citizenship in the event they married a foreign husband. Formerly, a U.S. woman’s marriage to a foreign husband resulted in her automatic expatriation as a U.S. citizen. Even after the statutory law was changed to stop such expatriations upon marriage, U.S. law continued to follow international agreements in which the father’s citizenship was the principal determinant of a child’s citizenship, absent various specified exceptions to the general rule. We saw this in the case of barack hussein obama and his mother Stanley Ann Dunham. In accordance with international laws on the subject, the U.S. law looked upon this 18 year old mother as a child bride of a foreign husband. Since the wife was still considered to be a minor under international law and the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States, she was not emancipated. Her adult guardian was changed from her father to her foreign husband. Consequently, her lack of emancipation and adult status resulted in her being unable to convey her U.S. citizenship to her child. By default, the child’s citizenship became that of the father for purposes of jus sanguinis inheritance of citizenship. However, since the United States uses a combination of jus sanguinis and jus soli, the child could acquire U.S. citizenship if and when the child was born in the jurisdiction of the United States. If the child was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States, the child could not acquire U.S. citizenship by means of jus sanguinis or jus soli. Instead, barack Hussein Obama would have been bor a British citizen, Canadian citizen, or a citizen of whatever other jurisdiction in which the birth took place.

In each case, however, it took a manmade law and not the natural circumstance of the birth to determine which sovereign to whom the child owed a duty of obediance. A natural born citizen by definition can owe the duty of obediance to only one sovereign a the time and palce of birth. A natural born citizen requires and cannot have a manmade statutory law determine the soveriegn to who the child owes obediance at birth.