The Top Ten “Birther” arguments against Ted Cruz, and why they are completely wrong

Western Free Press ^ | March 13 2014 | Patrick Colliano and Gregory Conterio

[DiogenesLamp]

We’ll all have to wait and see if anyone files suit against Senator Cruz. Thus far, no one of any political ideology has challenged his eligibility in court.

Your handle should be "Naive Germanicus." Of course they will not challenge him now. Brer rabbit needed to be flung into that briar patch before he could demonstrate that was what he wanted all along.

We commit, they file.

[DiogenesLamp]

Did you see any evidence of Obama trying to put the eligibility issue to rest and get it behind him?

To paraphrase Hitlery, "What difference does it make at this point?"

[Nero Germanicus]

O.K., will do.

[DiogenesLamp]

Trump already has

Trump would dare most anything. I wasn't referring to him, I was referring to the rest. Trump isn't the usual politician, he's a real maverick.

Everyone but Trump wouldn't dare. But you got me. I should have made it clear that I wasn't referring to Trump, but was instead referring to the other, more run of the mill politicians.

[Nero Germanicus]

Its good for a review of recent political history. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[DiogenesLamp]

You don’t go far wrong assuming the courts will always side with the left, and that they will be factually incorrect when they do so.

[DiogenesLamp]

O.K., will do.

I very much doubt it. More like you will be out here at first opportunity with the next silly opinion of the left wing court @$$e$.

[DiogenesLamp]

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Those who do learn from history are also doomed to repeat it because they have to live in the same society as the rest of the electorate who not only didn't learn anything from history, but don't comprehend much of anything anyways.

[Nero Germanicus]

Time will tell.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Supreme Court has also said that the term "natural born citizen" is simply an adaptation to our form of government of the English term "natural born subject."

And Thomas Jefferson says they're wrong. He changed the word. It is silly to think he changed the word without intending to change the meaning.

He got the usage of the word from Vattel. Had he intended us to follow English law in defining the character as that of a "Subject" he would have used the word "Subject." He almost did, and then he remembered that we were following Vattel's natural law basis for Independence.

We got the Idea of Independence from Vattel. We didn't get it from "English Common Law", because Independence is strictly forbidden to "subjects."

[DiogenesLamp]

Time will tell.

Or not. If Cruz doesn't win the nomination, we may never know. I don't want Trump, but i'm thinking he might get the nomination.

I prefer Cruz, Walker, or Carson, in that order.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I would say "tribes" are pretty natural. What "positive law" creates them?

Tribes have rules about who's in and who's out. They make those rules; they don't find them written in the clouds.

[DiogenesLamp]

Tribes have rules about who's in and who's out. They make those rules; they don't find them written in the clouds.

You're kidding, right? Their rules are "if you are born of our people, then you are a member of our tribe."

"If you are a woman taken from another tribe, now you are a member of ours."

Pretty much the United States, circa 1787.

It doesn't get simpler than that.

[CpnHook]

And Thomas Jefferson says they're wrong. He changed the word. It is silly to think he changed the word without intending to change the meaning.

Jefferson's first penning "subject," and then upon reconsideration changing that to "citizen," comports with what Chancellor Kent later wrote:

Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

Perhaps you can offer where Jefferson explained that these terms were so different, and if they were so different, why on earth he first choose a term so manifestly inappropriate.

He got the usage of the word from Vattel. He almost did, and then he remembered that we were following Vattel's natural law basis for Independence.

Nonsense. I've called you on this made-up claim not long ago. You've got no proof, yet you persist.

Plenty of writers before Vattel and after used the term "citizen." Montesquieu, who was FAR more influential on the framers of the Constitution than was Vattel, used the term "citizen" frequently. Jefferson's use, by itself, is no proof he's borrowing from Vattel.

We got the Idea of Independence from Vattel. We didn't get it from "English Common Law", because Independence is strictly forbidden to "subjects."

Again, you just make this sh*t up as you go along without a shred of support.

The Declaration of Independence traces its influences (there were multiple ones) back to the Magna Carta. James Otis (in an excerpt you're wont to highlight) cites as influences both John Locke (whom he lists first) and then Vattel.

You can stop this ridiculous assertion that Vattel was some singular influence on the American Revolution and Constitution any time now.

[DiogenesLamp]

Jefferson's first penning "subject," and then upon reconsideration changing that to "citizen," comports with what Chancellor Kent later wrote:

Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

If they are "convertible terms", why bother changing it? The normal usage was "Subject." If it makes no difference, why bother?

That he changed it was not an accident. It was a deliberate point to demonstrate that the two characters were not the same. The Declaration was informed by Vattel, and so was it's intended and deliberate usage of the word "Citizen."

Nonsense. I've called you on this made-up claim not long ago. You've got no proof, yet you persist.

The proof is in the word "Citizen" itself. I've looked up all instances of it in Shakespeare, and i've looked up all instances of it in Blackstone. The normal English usage is to describe the inhabitants of a City, not the members of a Confederated Republic of independent states. (You know, like Switzerland at the time.)

The only person of that era using that word in that context is Vattel. Even your lunatic buddies over at Dr. Conspiracy's kook site acknowledge that Jefferson borrowed heavily from Vattel in writing the Declaration of Independence. (What part of English Law does "Independence" come from?)

Plenty of writers before Vattel and after used the term "citizen." Montesquieu, who was FAR more influential on the framers of the Constitution than was Vattel, used the term "citizen" frequently. Jefferson's use, by itself, is no proof he's borrowing from Vattel.

You are not helping your case. Montesquieu was French, and wrote in French too. What was that French Standard for "Citoyenship" again? :)

Again, you just make this sh*t up as you go along without a shred of support.

No, it's demonstrable that England didn't have anything in it's common law to support the idea of "Independence." The concept was absolutely forbidden. No writer could have written about such an idea in England. He would have been arrested, and If I recall properly, Samuel Rutherford (cited in the Convention notes) got into a lot of trouble form merely hinting at it.

James Otis (in an excerpt you're wont to highlight) cites as influences both John Locke (whom he lists first) and then Vattel.

John Locke does not declare a natural right to revolution and Independence. Emmerich Vattel does. No one else asserts such a right. Only Vattel. No other writer of natural law would dare say such a thing. Only Vattel.

Vattel explicitly states:

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

And that led to this:

You can stop this ridiculous assertion that Vattel was some singular influence on the American Revolution and Constitution any time now.

Find someone else of that era suggesting the United States could form a Federal Republic, and perhaps you have a point. Till then, you are just caterwauling.

[Nero Germanicus]

In 2015 American Indian tribes each have different laws about the percentage of blood quantum needed to be enrolled as a tribal member.

Blood quantum laws are legislation enacted in the United States to define membership in Native American tribes or nations. “Blood quantum” refers to describing the degree of ancestry for an individual of a specific racial or ethnic group, for instance, 1/4 Omaha tribe.

Its use started in 1705 when Virginia adopted laws that limited colonial civil rights of Native Americans and persons of half or more Native American ancestry. The concept of blood quantum was not widely applied until the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The government used it to establish the individuals who could be recognized as Native American and be eligible for financial and other benefits under treaties that were made or sales of land.

Since that time, however, Native American nations have established their own rules for tribal membership, which vary among them. In some cases, individuals may qualify as tribal members, but not as American Indian for the purposes of certain federal benefits, which are still related to blood quantum. In the early 21st century some tribes have tightened their membership rules and excluded people who had previously been considered members, such as in the case of the Cherokee Freedmen.—Wikipedia

[Nero Germanicus]

Time will tell.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where do you get these ideas that this legal crapola has any significance? The concept of "tribe" is world wide. Virtually every racial distinction started out as a "tribe" somewhere. The Germans had tribes, the Picts had tribes, the Norwegians had tribes, the French had tribes, and so on.

In all those cases, the laws of nature were pretty apparent. If you were born of the members of that tribe, you were of the tribe. If you were taken as a wife from another tribe, you were a member of that new tribe.

Rare was it that someone from outside became a member, but in such cases, we would regard that as "naturalization."

I'll bet you that throughout human history, no tribe ever decided someone was a member merely from being born in their village.

[Tau Food]

I think that there are a lot of fascinating arguments on both sides of this question. However, I think that too many people overlook the fact that the qualifications of candidates are to be judged by the electors who select the president and by the voters who select the electors. So, whatever anyone might think, they should remember that it is important to design their arguments to appeal to those decision-makers. If the argument is too convoluted or if it fails to make common sense, then it's not going to work.

The courts have never told anyone that he can't run for president. And, they're not going to try to do that.

[Nero Germanicus]

Since this discussion is about the concept of natural born citizens in the United States and since the indigenous tribal peoples of the United States are American Indians...well, you can figure out the rest.
Who’s in an American tribe is variable since 1705.