Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.
"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What he says sounds nice, but there isn’t enough known about him, and none - absolutely none of the information about him in Cuba has been verified. Don’t you see how much this is all parallel to the Obama phenomenon - “ooh, I love what he says, I don’t care about any facts, and if you question any of it, I’ll call you a name and tell you to shut up.”
We are going to support Ted Cruz to the hilt here on FR if he runs. Those who wish to work us against us and or troll us on this will probably find themselves sitting it out for the duration. FR will not be an anti-Cruz site.
Go, Ted, GO!!
Let me help you out, here, you do realize that I am NOT the author of the essay I posted, right?
And, you do understand that Vattel was a reference in the article and NOT the subject of the article itself.
From what I am seeing, you are arguing about the shape of the table instead of the issue ON the table.
When you figure that part out, feel free to get back to me.
Citizen yes, NBC?
There is a reason Citizen and NBC are differentiated on the Constitution, I wish it was more clear.
I wish the 2nd Amendment only just stated "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" too.
What the Founders thought was a clear meaning of words, semantics, would not change was a mistake.
Other than that, I trust in their wisdom explicitly!
Actually, that Blackstone book was discussed by Congress as they set about writing the Naturalization Laws of 1790 and 1795. They didn’t consider it out of order, so why should we???
And, their discussion and subsequent laws track almost thought for thought with the Blackstone section underlined.
Representative Jackson, in the Congressional Record, commenting during the discussion of the Naturalization Law of 1790 said: “I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by the reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone, I, 10”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships8.html
Vattel did not use the term “natural born” in his writings.
Ever.
For one, he was French.
One more remark, following your blockquote. Citizenship tended to follow that of the father, at the time the Constitution was drafted.
No part of the DoI is enforcible, in any way. It was a declaration of revolution.
NBC requires no naturalization or law, it is the essence of unquestionable being.
A child of 2 citizen parents being born on the soil leaves no doubt, others require statutes.
Series??????
The Constitution certainly backs it up, as well as the 2nd Amendment.
The inherent rights of Man from GOD, not man's law backs it up.
The only way it is not enforceable is if no MAN backs it up.
And Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not a valid point.
Heh. I know it's a topic astray from the thread, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Congress and Courts would have no more trouble infringing under that statement, than they did and do with the "well regulated militia" clause being in there too.
Wave the hand and redefine "arms", like Scalia did in the Heller case, to mean "arms in common use." Or redefine "infringe."
"Law" and "logic" are emphatically not the same thing. Law is what is enforced by the credible threat of force, death if you push hard enough. It's little more than brute force, couched in what its practitioners fancy to be righteous justification. But at bottom, it's nothing more than brute force. See, e.g., Mafia. Same thing, different name.
NBC?
Yes. The evidence is stacking up, Ron. I know you’re beginning to see it.
The Naturalization law of 1790 directly says it.
Blackstone says it.
The 1795 law says it’s by right and by descent from just one citizen parent.
Thomas Jefferson says it’s by birth to a citizen parent, so again, it’s by right of blood descent.
The congressional record says that congressman Burke and congressman Hartly both wanted to make provisions for children born overseas:
Burke said: “The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.”
He says to follow the BRITISH who considered those children to be natural born subjects as noted above by Blackstone.
James Kent suggests the same thing, by right of blood descent:
“(2.) By a subsequent part of the same section, it is declared, that “the children of persons, who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citzens of the United States: provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never resided within the United States.” This clause is certainly not prospective in its operation, whatever may be the just construction of the one preceding it. It applied only to the children of persons who then were, or had been citizens; and consequently the benefit of this provision narrows rapidly by the lapse of time, and the period will soon arrive, when there will be no statute regulation for the benefit of children born abroad, of American parents, and they will be obliged to resort for aid to the dormant and doubtful principles of the English common law. This provision leaves us likewise in doubt, whether the act intended by the words, “children of persons,” both the father and mother, in imitation of the statute of 25 Edw. III.; or the father only, according to the more liberal declaration of the statute of 4 Geo. II. This clause differs from the preceding one, in being without any restriction as to the age or residence of the child; and it appears to have been intended for the case of the children of natural born citizens, or of citizens who were original actors in our revolution, and therefore it was more comprehensive and more liberal in their favour. But the whole statute provision is remarkably loose and vague in its terms, and it is lamentably defective in being confined to the case of children of parents who were citizens in 1802, or had been so previously. The former act of 29th January, 1795, was not so; for it declared generally, that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” And when we consider the universal propensity to travel, the liberal intercourse between nations, the extent of commercial enterprise, and the genius and spirit of our municipal institutions, it is quite surprising that the rights of the children of American citizens, born abroad, should, by the existing act of 1802, be left so precarious, and so far inferior in the security which has been given, under like circumstances, by the English statutes.”
Well, the constitution is enforceable, in a way. It can be cited as the basis for asserting a right to a remedy against the government. The DoI lacks that "citable" force. It (the DoI) is not binding on the government, or on any person.
The DoI is really radical. It sets the individual (acting as a group) to be master over the government. I believe the US is unique in all of history in that regard. The experiment has run its course. We're back to the historical norm of the government being the master over the people.
I agree, at the time blood descent was from the father, although Blackstone muddies those waters a bit, as does Kent in 1826.
Subsequent law, as we are aware, removed all such gender-based distinctions. However, the principle of “one parent derived citizenship” goes all the way to the law of 1790.
Allow me to reiterate:
"Let me help you out, here, you do realize that I am NOT the author of the essay I posted, right?
And, you do understand that Vattel was a reference in the article and NOT the subject of the article itself.
From what I am seeing, you are arguing about the shape of the table instead of the issue ON the table.
When you figure that part out, feel free to get back to me."
The Naturalization power of Congress, granted by the Constitution, enables them to say who must be Naturalized, so therefore, they have to identify who does NOT have to be naturalized.
According to those laws, children born overseas to citizen parents do NOT have to be naturalized. Their citizenship is native, natural, by birth, by blood.
I don't know all of the history, but gender based distinction (favoring the father) was in place at least into the 1960's.
And, since Congress apparently has the power to define NBC, it can re-assert any criteria it finds advantageous.
I see you keep missing the point that Vattel is a key argument within your article, and that his support has been taken away.
Vattel did not use the expression “natural born” in his writings. EVER.
Not in French and not in English. They have words for both “natural” and “born”. They weren’t linked by Vattel.
Instead, he spoke of the “indigenes”
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.