Posted on 08/25/2013 7:24:55 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Edited on 08/25/2013 7:26:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) is the hottest commodity in Republican politics these days, winning rave reviews everywhere he goes on the I
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
But, read what you've written. Do you really think that any significant number of voters or their electors (the people who, under our Constitution, choose our presidents) are going to feel compelled by that argument to exclude from their consideration a candidate like Ted Cruz who is a citizen by birth, who has spent his life in America, who was educated in America and whose national loyalties clearly belong to the United States?
Quite frankly, I don't think the vast majority of ordinary voters who lived during our country's founding would have any idea what you're talking about. "Citizen at birth" is a much more natural construction of the term natural born citizen.
But, if you want to limit your choices in selecting a president, you are free to do so. Your vote is your vote just like my vote is my vote. ;-)
“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.”
Unnecessary? I have to laugh on that one, because the Founders viewed lmitations of this character as absolutely vital to the survival of the Rpublic. They were certainly right to do so. They had just been subjected to centureis of dynastic wars which often featured absolute rulers who were imposed upon them from above from a society who often did not even speak their language.
for examples, look at: the Danelaw, and King Canute; William the Conqueror; the assortment of English monarchs raised abroad from engalnd; King James; the Scottish succession; the hanoverians; the British efforts to subvert the United States from the Revolutionary War to the American Civil War; the French and Austrian installation of Emperor maximillian of Mexico; and so forth.
At the endo of the American Revolutionary War, the unpaid and very ill supplied and ill kept Continental Army attempted to get George Washingto to allow them to cron him King of the United States. To his eternal credit, George Washington put down those ideas quickly and forcefully. The soldiers of the Continental Army were so furious and angered by the Continental Congress and its failures to pay their back wages and uniforms, they were in enough of a mutinous mood to lynch members of Congress. Under these conditions the members of Congress were ever mindful of the danger of some monarch’s heir coming to the United States and garnering enough support to be installed as the monarch of the United States or one of its seperatist parts.
Given the way in which a british King abdicated his throne to marry an American divocee and the way Winston Churchill’s mother was a U.S. citizen until her marriage, the necessity for careful control of who has access to the command of the armed forces and executive branch of our government is not to be underestimated.
“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.”
narrow? Now that is a strawman argument if there ever was one. The definition of natural and natural law are about has broad a definition as there ever can be. Start with Black’s Law Dictionary, ballantine’s Law Dictionarythe merriam-Webstaer Dictoinary, the Oxford Dictionary. Then go to the foreign language dictionaries, French, German, Russian, italian, Spanish, Japanese, and you name it. The legal concept of a natural law being a condition in which manmade law is and must be absent are one of the broadest and most universal legal concpets out there.
Furthermore, this nonsense being spouted that this is all nothing more than a wild “birther theory” is nothing more than derogatory abuse being used to obfuscate the observable truth it is all based upon a chain of historical practices extending backwards to the Roman Republic and earlier. If you doubt thiss then look for yourself at Calvin’s Case in 1608 and follow the changing English and French nationality p practices back into the 14th Century. While doing so, never forget how this is all about who has the power and the obligation to do what in the society. That is precisely why there has been a millenials long struggle between the legal philosophers and their efforts to “discover’ natural law and the more down to Earth powers that be employing mandmade laws often contrary to the results of natural law.
So it still is today, as the Socialists-Communists of the EU utilize the governments to deny the citizens of the member nations the right to vote for and against membership in the EU. It is the same old struggle in Europe, but just different players donning different robes to conceal their grabs for dictatorial powers.
The Founders and Framers made their views clear in the Naturalization Act of 1790, signed into law by President Washington:
“the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
And in today’s parlance, current U.S. law states that one of the criteria for being a Citizen of the United States at Birth is:
“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...” -US Code Title 8 Section 1401
Well, of course, that's one of the problems that i have with your argument. I agree with Justice Scalia that when interpreting the Constitution, we should be searching for the views of "ordinary citizens" rather than just the views of a handful of that generation's elite:
"The Second Amendment provides: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that '[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation."
I'm just not convinced that most ordinary voters (then or now) were/are familiar with the somewhat intricate concepts upon your argument is based. If some of the leaders of that generation wanted to bind everyone with a narrow, precise definition for the NBC term, they really should have laid it out in the text.
Keep in mind that is the voters and their electors who decide these issues. Keep the arguments short and sweet. ;-)
actually i think that the problem with Obama, he may be a citizen but he didn’t live here and has a real imperial mindset that it pervasive overseas.
Ted Cruz is far more American that Obama.
Thats’ JMO.
ditto!
Sorry, but the major authorities of the early United States say you're wrong. Ted Cruz is as eligible as any President who's ever served.
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.
Let's also be clear that according to the documentation left behind by the legal experts of the early United States, "natural born citizen" absolutely DOES NOT require both birth on US soil and citizen parents. It only requires that a person be BORN A CITIZEN, which is exactly what Ted Cruz was.
This was explicitly stated by James Bayard in his Exposition of the Constitution, and that exposition was approved by the legal experts of his day. It was also used to teach the Constitution in our colleges and seminaries.
Here's the basic problem with birthers. This is the fundamental fallacy.
They start not by going and reading history, law and the Founding Fathers and early legal experts, with anything like an open mind.
They start with the conclusion. Then they go looking to "prove" it.
Or, at the very least, they start with a THEORY, that they then go looking for evidence to "prove."
And whenever evidence pops up that contradicts their theory, they go to all kinds of contortions to discredit it, twist it into saying something it never said, or flat-out deny it.
That's not how history works. That's not how competent and honest people process history. Competent and honest people begin by saying, "Let's go see what the Founding Fathers and our experts in the law have had to say." They then carefully and objectively weigh the quality of the evidence in each direction - if they have more than one theory of what something meant - and they go with what the evidence, interpreted in context, tells them.
So they derive their THEORY from the evidence. They don't come up with a nice-sounding theory and then go try to "prove" it and ram it down other people's throats even though it's in extensive conflict with the evidence.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The Canal Zone at the time was not a possession or territory of the United States so McCain was not eligible to be POTUS either.
Pass. NO AMNESTY for illegal foreign presidents!
It's almost like a set-up to make Obama's origins seem insignificant.
Jeff Winston citing a James Madison quote:
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."Just one of many instances of this particular quote, and many similar.Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3003325/posts?page=23#23
Cruz is naturalized.
Beautiful analysis.
As a Kid I remember my Dad talking about natural law and the founders. My Dad is a history buff. A walking encyclopedia.
So why is he renouncing his Canadian citizenship from birth?
I think he should keep his Canadian citizenship.
That way I can have a Canadian president. The maple leaf flying over the white house would be fine with me. Better than the Kenyan flag or Indonesian flag.
We choose our presidents, because we're Americans. And, that's special!! ;-)
An American man goes to China and gets a Chinese woman pregnant.
An American woman goes to china, gets pregnant by a chinese citizen.
Both leave the baby in China a day after the birth, with the Chinese Father and Mother. Both born in China.
Are both NBC of America? Why not?
That’s right. Cruz has a Canadian bc and citizenship.
We can elect him as President. Canadians might like that too. Maybe we get maple syrup out of the deal. It’s a win win.
Think it through Tau.
Two chinese kids, speaking chinese, born in China to Chinese citizen parents. Both have American parents. One an American Mother, the other an American Father.
Are they NBC Americans? If they are not, Why is Ted Cruz?
Again, why is he renouncing his Canadian Citizenship?
My daughter is a dual citizen, not NBC, and we celebrate that.
So why is he renouncing his citizenship?
Is this normal for a NBC?
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.