Posted on 04/12/2016 4:48:11 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas meets the criteria to be considered a “natural born citizen” and can run in New Jersey’s Republican presidential primary on June 7, an administrative law judge ruled Tuesday.
Judge Jeff Masin’s decision will now go to Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who also serves as New Jersey’s secretary of state, for consideration. She can choose to accept it in full or in part, or reject it.
Masin heard arguments Monday on two challenges to Cruz’s eligibility to run for president. In both cases, the challengers argued that, because Cruz was born in Canada, he is not a natural born citizen, one of three constitutional requirements for the presidency.
Cruz, 45, was born in Calgary, Alberta. His mother, a U.S. citizen, was born in Delaware. His father was born in Cuba. Cruz has said that a child of a U.S. citizen is automatically granted citizenship at birth and is therefore “natural born.”
(Excerpt) Read more at northjersey.com ...
I think my OSAS illustration explains my point. And it isn’t any kind of ill-willed point.
That is the generic concept, but in practice they added foundational assumptions. "Natural Law" for the British was based on the Assumption that the King was the chosen servant of God, and therefore it was consistent with God's will that people had a natural allegiance to, and a natural obedience to the King.
Those are best described in the Declaration of Independence where it states that “all men are created equal.
No, that's just Jefferson being flowery and clever. The understanding of the time was not that all men were equal, it was that all the men of the dominant group should be more or less equal, and everyone else should not.
It was never intended to apply to Slaves or Indians, though people later dishonestly asserted that it did.
When one references “Natural Law” one is not referencing Vattel or International laws and treaties or any laws or traditions of men whatsoever.
In the generic sense one is not. In the practical sense, one very much was. "Natural Law" was expounded upon by many philosophers, such as John Locke, or Samuel Rutherford, among others. There was a whole host of philosophers being read at the time, some with arguments that reinforce each other, and some with arguments that contradict each other.
The ones that matter to us were the ones who's principles we embraced to create our own nation.
It was by statute that slaves were not natural born citizens.
"Natural citizens" are not created by statutes, nor are they prevented by statutes. Slaves were not natural citizens because they did not issue from members of the nation.
Under Natural Law slaves were free men, the creations of God and endowed by their creator with the right to Liberty.
Under what we regard as natural law now slaves would be regarded as such. Under what they regarded as natural law at the time, they were not.
I've noticed over the years of discussing this issue, that many people have a real difficulty with anachronistic thinking. They keep thinking their present ideas were universal in the past, and they just weren't. "The Past is a foreign country", and a lot of people simply cannot seem to grasp this concept.
Slavery was a man made institution. It was entirely contrary to God’s design and entirely inconsistent with Natural Law in which all men are created equal.
This is only true if you follow the Christian religion. If you follow the Muslim religion, slavery is completely consistent with God's will to chose favorites among his worshipers. The Islamic religion is one giant pecking order from the lowliest slave to the Highest Sultan or King, and then to the Prophet and Allah thereafter.
Natural law philosophy according to Islam makes slavery a natural condition of some people.
Where Western civilization went wrong is in the adoption of these non-Christian principles into what was an inherently Christian society.
The fact of the matter is that “Natural Born” statutes are all the creation of men, just as borders and nations are all the creations of men.
There is no such thing as a "natural citizen" statute. You cannot make such a thing. It's like saying there is a "natural constant" defined by statute.
Borders are not inherent and can be changed, but natural membership of a nation cannot.
I keep hearing this “Cruz’s sealed records” assertion. I put such assertions into the tin-foil hat category.
The facts of his case are clear and well known, and no “sealed records” would make any difference no matter what they might say.
If such exist, they are still irrelevant, but I don’t think any such things exist.
“Dave isn’t here, man”..
Not less than human, but i'm pretty sure the founders at the time considered them all "less than themselves." Even Lincoln felt that way as demonstrated by his writings on numerous occasions.
Not even Jefferson freed his slaves, despite his lofty sentiments.
I was responding to the claim that Natural Born refers to "Natural Law". Natural Law refers to laws of God and nature and not the laws of men.
Well it does refer to "natural law". It just doesn't refer to what you regard as the pure form of it. In the context of 1776, it refers to what the founders believed to be "natural law", not "Natural Law" as informed by more modern principles.
Again, the British and the Muslim nations also had their own forms of "Natural law", and parts of them were incompatible with our own.
In this regard, I am reminded of the development of non-Euclidean geometry. Before it's advent, only Euclidean plane geometry made sense. As the mathematics developed, we realized there was a larger conceptual world out there.
You keep wanting to apply a more advanced understanding than the people of the time possessed, and this is an error in your thinking.
What does information about the "Cruz family" have to do with whether or not he is eligible?
It sounds like you are trying to thread-jack by bringing up points that are irrelevant to the topic of discussion.
Whether he beats his dog, or enjoys planting flowers is really not germane to the point. Neither is the doings of his family.
Nothing that isn't related to his eligibility is "to the point."
“If by the conditions of one’s birth they are NOT a citizen at birth, then they are naturalized and not natural born.”
No, the person is born an alien. Some select examples:
A child born abroad with two alien parents is born an alien.
In the absence of a naturalization law authorizing naturalized citizenship at birth for such a child, a child born abroad with two citizen parents is born an alien. Such a child may acquire citizenship only by naturalization after birth.
In the presence of a naturalization law authorizing naturalized citizenship at birth for such a child, a child born abroad with a citizen father is born an alien, who is automatically granted the right to adopt naturalized citizenship at birth provided certain conditions are met.
In the presence of a naturalization law authorizing naturalized citizenship at birth for such a child, a child born abroad with a citizen mother after 1934 is born an alien, who is automatically granted the right to adopt naturalized citizenship at birth provided certain conditions are met.
In the absence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution a child born within the jurisdiction of the United States Article III courts with two alien parents is born an alien.
In the absence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution a child born within the jurisdiction of the United States Article III courts with one alien parent and one citizen parent is born an alien.
In the presence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution a child born within the jurisdiction of the United States Article III courts with two alien parents is born an alien, who is automatically granted the right to adopt naturalized citizenship at birth.
In the presence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution a child born within the jurisdiction of the United States Article III courts with one alien father and one former citizen mother who expatriated upon marriage to become an alien mother before 1934 is born an alien, who is automatically granted the right to adopt naturalized citizenship at birth.
In the presence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution a child born within the jurisdiction of the United States Article III courts with one alien father and one citizen mother from 1934 is born an alien, who is automatically granted the right to adopt naturalized citizenship at birth.
At anytime in English, British, and American history a child born with a citizen father and citizen mother not attainted with Treason within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts of law is a natural born citizen.
Etc.
I believe that is an unproven assertion that people are bandying about as a "fact." In other words, it is a fake fact. Fake "facts" were also spread regarding John McCain's birth certificate. We should be used to people spreading fake information by now. Cruz's mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth until someone produces some valid proof to the contrary.
when Ted was born in Canada, and his dad wasn't an American citizen when Ted was born in Canada, then why is Ted Cruz calling himself a Natural Born American?
I would assume he does so for a couple of reasons.
1. Because it is a necessity that he do so to be elected.
2. Because he somehow, and contrary to reason and historical evidence, believes this to be true.
And I will throw in:
3. Because a lot of ignorant people who have received modern legal training keep telling everyone he is.
“The Constitution acknowledges this fact. There were citizens distinct from ‘natural born citizens’ before there ever was such a thing as a ‘naturalized’ citizen.”
That is incorrect. Naturalized citizenship has existed ever since prehistoric times when brides were captured from alien tribes. In more recent eras, naturalization by the statutory laws of Parliament has been ongoing since the 14th Century.
Opposite in fact. A competent and busy man knows better than to waste his time with crap.
You and others just keep demonstrating that my judgement in this regard was completely sound.
Wallow in your ignorance, looks good on you.
A point which I will have Reagan rebut.
"The problem with our opponents is not that they are ignorant... It's that they know so much which isn't so."
Don't fill your head with nonsense, and then lambast others for their ignorance of the nonsense you wish to believe.
“The fact is that Citizenship is determined not by Natural Law but by the laws of men.”
You are conflating two separate issues. Natural born membership by birth into a social group is determined by the membership of the parents in the social group of the sovereign social group or the non-sovereign social group, whereas the citizenship status of that social group is determined by unnatural manmade laws such as conquest or subjection.
In a letter to Breitbart News, Cruz representatives stated "Eleanor was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law. In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970: Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967—only 3 years before Senator Cruz's birth."For what it's worth...There are some links I didn't format for the quote. I'm outta time...I should be doing other things at the moment that I get paid for and I'd like to keep this job.This is EXACTLY what they want you to think; otherwise it would be proof positive that Ted is not a US citizen (besides no CBRA).
And this would be true for anyone who was an American, but they were betting that no one would make the connection to Eleanor’s previous 8 years in England, that she was a British subject, so for the most part she was already a Canadian citizen, it was the reason she moved there, and so after just one year she was 100% Canadian, exclusively. Remember, she moved to Canada almost exactly ONE year after the death of her son Michael Wilson in England. She was in the USA for a very short period in between England and Canada, so this was a total span of 16 years living outside of the USA
By late 1970 when Ted was born, Alberta had finally joined the national medicare plan. As a citizen, Eleanor would have received all medical care, including delivery of baby Ted, for next to nothing. Even before 1970, the Alberta government had provided free maternity care under a version of health-care insurance known at the time as Manning Care. Those hospital records would certainly tell the truth.
The question you have to ask is "Why would they quit great jobs and move to Canada?"
By the time Rafael received his citizenship, their relationship was showing signs of strain and the business was faltering. Rafael was making frequent trips back to the US to see his children and presumably his American wife Julia, telling them he was still ‘on assignment’ in Calgary. It is probable that Rafael fully intended to return to the USA once he had his Canadian citizenship, but by then Eleanor was already pregnant, and on December 22, 1970 Rafael and Eleanor Cruz gave birth to Rafael Edward Cruz in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. After Ted’s birth they both began drinking heavily as the fights and arguments escalated. By 1974 the business was in dire straits so Rafael sold the ailing R.B. Cruz and Associates to Dave Robson, who turned it into Veritas Seismic Ltd.. Once the business was sold, Rafael abandoned Eleanor and his 3 year old son Rafael Edward Cruz in Calgary with very little money or income and returned to his American wife Julia Ann (Garza) Cruz and their 2 daughters Miriam and Roxanne, in Texas. (Once again, all of these events by Rafael should have generated entries into his US A-File.)
As 'Ted' Cruz tells it, Rafael had a 'come to Jesus' moment when he became a member of a Dominionist Church after which he returned to Eleanor and Ted and renewed their relationship.
The truth is closer to Eleanor packing up everything she had in Calgary and left the 8 years there behind her and once again returning to her family in Texas, where she proceeded to track Rafael down, not that she won him back 100% though.
Rafael B. Cruz continued in BOTH marriages, raising all three of the children into adulthood, at least until 1997, when he filed for divorce from both women, one in the USA and the other in Canada, ending his bigamist lifestyle.
The following facts must be considered concerning Ted's citizenship:
At the time of Ted’s birth neither parent was a citizen of the United States. Both had become Canadian Citizens. Rafael had never been and Eleanor gave up her US citizenship in England and then converted from British to Canadian.
Before I forget...you made some good points, especially regarding current time perspective, in post 163. Thanks!
“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: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”
The Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly stated a child born abroad acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization as a naturalized citizen.
Nothing there at all!
This ruling originates from the meeting at SCOTUS January 14th, 2009 between John Roberts and Co and then Barry Soetoro, a deal made = (intimidation) NOT to touch ANY NBC issues. As you may see it has trickled down to ALL lower courts!!
Additionally helped by hack Jack Maskell to “brainwash” = intimidated 535 CONmen/CONwomen into silence as well!!!
Don’t you see ALL lawsuits has been dismissed and future will land in the waste baskets as well???
Very good points.
Okay, I'm trying to follow your argument here. (And not having an easy time of it.)
What you seem to be saying is that Eleanor inadvertently became British from living in England? And therefore met the time requirement to become Canadian?
While the distinction between Britain and Canada in the 20th century is very confusing, by 1970 they were mostly separate nations. Even granting that the one is the same as the other, you can't inadvertently give up your US Citizenship. It must be relinquished through a formal declaration, and unless there is a record of her having done this, all the other speculation is meaningless.
Show how she formally renounced her citizenship and I will consider this issue further.
Thank you so very much, HarleyLady27, for your post. You should be commended for your documentation of the facts presented. Bless you!
Good for you!
The founders understood what the phrase “all men are created equal” meant and the Southern Colonies were quite upset frankly that the language was included as it implied that Slaves were endowed by their creator with Life and Liberty. There was a debate about it. The language was drafted by a man who owned slaves and ultimately it was included in the final draft.
The Declaration of Independence was an appeal to higher law in order to justify the separation of the Colonies from England. It was understood at the time that the colonists were British Subjects and subject to the King who held his throne by Divine Right. It was a document that was intended to appeal to God to show that the King had violated his sacred duties and was no longer fit to be their king and that their rebellion was, in fact, sanctioned by the same God who granted the King his divine rights.
That being said, the Declaration of Independence - if taken in its purest form - was, in fact, an emancipation proclamation declaring that all men are created equal and that they have inherent rights, granted by God, which include the right to life and the right to liberty and the right to rule their own lives.
I believe the Declaration of Independence was inspired by God. But it was written by flawed men. The language that men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights to life and liberty are clearly true. The Founders reliance on the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God were well meaning and I think in the end the words that brought America to the point ultimately where it was clear that enslaving men could no longer be tolerated.
I think people are not getting my point. There is no Natural Law as it applies to citizenship in a country.
The only Natural Law that affects citizenship is our citizenship in the Kingdom of God, a Kingdom not of this world (at least not yet).
I see people try to justify denying certain individuals the label of Natural Born Citizen and using “Natural Law” i.e, the laws of Nature and God, to justify denying that term to that individual.
But as I have stated, the Citizenship of a person in a country is not something that has anything to do with Natural Law and is only done on a statutory basis. Natural Born Citizen is a term which is created by men and not God. All Citizens, whether born or naturalized, are citizens in accordance with statutes that are on the books at the time of their birth or at the time of their naturalization.
To argue that somehow God is involved in the determination of whether or not someone is a Natural Born Citizen or not is the functional equivalent of the argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Everyone of us who can claim to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States can only make that claim based on statutes in effect on the date of our birth. As far as I can tell the only statute that defined “Natural Born Citizen” was the 1789 statute that George Washington signed into law. Under that statute everyone running for president right now would be a natural born citizen.
I do not see any distinction between a person who is born a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. And in going back to slavery, if those people, by virtue of statutes that prevented them from obtaining their God given rights to life and liberty, were prevented from being numbered among the Natural Born Citizens, then the whole idea of Natural Born Citizen is a creation of statute and if Congress can take it away, then they can give it as well. There are currently no statutes on the books in the United States which differentiate between a Citizen by virtue of Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.
OK, I gotta go. I need to get away from all this contention.
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.