Posted on 04/12/2016 4:48:11 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
Ok, here is the rebuttal (original was updated to clarify some points):
First error occurs at about 3:00 into the video. The video states that Congress could pass a law that changes the definition and calls that supposition ridiculous. Yet the fact is, Article 1 Section 8 clause four specifically enumerated Congress with the power to do just that. Congress has unrestricted authority over all rules of naturalization. Under the rules of naturalization Congress gets to define who is and who is not a Citizen. Who needs to be naturalized and who is a citizen at birth, Further, the first acts of Congress, the founders specifically stated that: “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”. This clearly shows the founder’s intent to not follow jus soli as justification for NBC status.
Second error occurs when the video attempts to hold Vattel as an authority higher than the Constitution in that she is attempting to ignore the above authority granted to Congress. Further, the very first Congress who had many of the same drafters and signers wrote the very first naturalization act of 1790 which was signed by George Washington. In that act, Congress SPECIFICALLY states that those born outside of the boundaries to US parents are US citizen and are natural born citizens. In other words, the framers of the constitution DID NOT REQUIRE being born on US soil to be born a citizen. So rather than rely on what the framers MAY have had access to, read or considered, it is a much clearer indicator of intent by observing what the framers actually passed into law.
[agreement 5:40] Ramsey said “... as a natural right, belongs to none, but those that have been born of citizens....” And this is the exact state of Sen Cruz. He inherited his citizenship from his mother at the time of his birth. Further when quoting Ramsey, be aware that Ramsey did not require the location or jus soli in his definition. This puts him in direct contradiction to Vattel
Third error is at 6:20 where the speaker states that no act of congress makes the NBC a citizen. This is incorrect. All nations have the organic right as a sovereign nation to define their borders and their citizens. All nations exercise this right via acts of their legislators. The founders knew this and specifically enumerated Congress with the authority over all rules of naturalization. This includes those who are aliens and those who are citizens at birth. Starting in the very first acts of Congress, this authority has been exercised. Those first acts have been repealed and replaced along with subsequent acts till one gets to the current code as expressed in USC Title 8 section 1401 - Nationals and Citizens of United States at birth.
The first general error of this video is the belief that jus sanguinis (right of blood) as the ONLY means of NBC conference. That is NOT the current law. The current law incorporates the 14th amendment which is now part of the Constitution and there is no higher legal authority. And before anyone starts with “the intent of the founders” I will remind you that the founders intent allowed slave owners and denied women the right to vote. Our laws have changed since the founders because the founders specifically allowed means to change the Constitution and laws of this nation.
Fourth error is at 9:30 that Marco Rubio has been naturalized. Rubio was a citizen at birth and has never been naturalized.
Fifth error is at 10:20 is with regards to Sen Cruz’s mother’s citizenship. Sen Cruz’s mother was a US Citizen at the time of Sen Cruz’s birth. This is a known fact.
Sixth error is at 10:25 in the assertion that only the father’s status counts towards inheritance of citizenship or NBC. In the very first naturalization act of 1790, the status of the father only requires prior residence within the US as part of the criteria for NBC. Further, this was met by Sen Cruz’s father though the current law does not require it for citizenship at birth.
Seventh error at 10:40 the assertion that common law exceeds the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Neither Common Law, nor English common law, nor Roman law, nor dictionary, book, script or written opinion exceeds the Constitution with regards to authority.
Eight error at 11:25 is the assertion that one must renounce citizenship in some other country to be a US citizen. Laws of other nations have no weight on US laws and as such are irrelevant. My citizenship would not change just because some other country asserts that I am a citizen. Some other nation could assert that I am a citizen of that country because of the amount of time that I spent in that country. My status as a citizen and NBC comes from the conditions of my birth and does not come from any other nation’s laws. Again, those laws are irrelevant to US law. The video is representing how they would like the laws of the US TO BE, not how they are. The genius of the founders is that they made a way for those who want to change this to be able to do so. If you don’t like what the 14th amendment says, get enough of your like-minded individuals together to change it. Same with the laws of this nation.
“What you call “..making the assertion in defiance of historical fact...” is more correctly called “referencing and quoting the law””
You cited a law and then proceeded to use a commonplace misrepresentation of the law in defiance of the historical application of that law. The problems with the interpretation of that law have been brought to your attention, and rather than reconcile your mis-interpretation of that law to the historical applications of the naturalization laws, you instead just adamantly refuse to acknowledge the conflicts with reality. You also keep attempting to claim that an unnatural naturalization act can somehow confer natural born citizenship, despite the fact that no legislative act or statutory law can ever have the authority to make any person a natural born citizen.
Again, you are incorrect.
In fact, the very founders of the Constitution in their very firsts acts of Congress created a law to do EXACTLY what you say can’t be done - they defined via naturalization act, what was to be considered as natural born citizen.
So who is in defiance of history?
You are wrong on all counts. Details will ave to wait until after the work is done.
“For example, if the Founders created the “natural born” requirement with the understanding or intention to incorporate the statutory laws of England, then why, in the notes of the committee discussions of the drafting of the Naturalization Act of 1790, did one of the committee members state that “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.” If the English statutes were already incorporated, why was Congress in 1790 drafting a law specifically in order to provide for what was already provided for in one of the supposedly incorporated English statutes?”
Here is my reply (AS WRITTEN-NO “EDITS”)
Thank you again for your reply and for taking the time to view the video.
I will now reply to the eight topics you listed in your post.
#1. Her comment was congress could not change the NBC definition. Congress can and has changed MANY rules for NATURALIZATION.
Again, NBC = nothing else needed. NATURALIZED = Not NBC.
#2. Vattel & Ramsey were the blueprint for NBC (she referenced Franklin and others who repeated that). NONE of the founding fathers up until Harrison were NBC. They needed wording for the the non-qualified NBC generation to specify who was eligible until the first NBC generation was “ready” and could meet the Vattel and Ramsey based NBC qualifications. When that happened, THAT initial starting part was made moot.
It is VERY well explained in the video.
That is why the 14th is almost the carbon copy of the above.
How do you make the newly freed slaves able to acquire an NBC ststus? The first ones were NATIONALIZED. When it evolved (just like with the first Presidents) that both parents and the child were American born, that made them NBC.
The argument is not whether they were “citizens”. They were by the laws that were passed (also explained in the video) making them NATURALIZED citizens, but NOT NBC.
#3. No (extra) act of congress makes the NBC a citizen, and that is correct because they don’t require one. Any law needed to gain citizenship that DOES NOT meet NBC ststus makes that person NATURALIZED and not NBC.
#4. Rubio is considered an “anchor baby” at best and does NOT meet NBC qualifications. His parents are now NATURALIZED but that does not elevate Marco to NBC status.
#5. Yes Ted’s mother (AFAIK) was an American citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.
Ted was also born out of country with a non-US citizen father.
IMHO, the WHOLE Obama is legit to run for POTUS argument hinged on the public swallowing the “Born In Hawaii” premise. If he WAS born in Kenya, with a non-US citizen father, he would have REALLY WITHOUT A DOUBT been ineligible under NBC and the Dems and Obama knew it. The folks who questioned Obama’s non-NBC status even with his “born-in-Hawaii” meme, were immediately slapped with the race card to try and kill the debate. Ted is in the SAME spot as Obama, but unfortunately doesn’t have the “Born-In-The USA” card to utilize in his argument.
#6. As explained above, the 1790 rules were put in place so SOMEONE would be qualified under a set of rules to run to be POTUS (explained in the video) until NCB people were able by law to run.Same with the slaves. Those laws did NOT make the NBC.
They NATURALIZED them. Just like those landing in a beach in the USA with a raft or crossing a border to arrive here.
In a generation they will start having NBC qualified children.
#7. I’m not sure what is meant by that statement, but that is almost the MAIN point made by the speaker in the video.
She stated that words in the Constitution mean what they mean. The words are not “Play-Dough” to be twisted and molded to fit someone’s point of view or winning argument,
and NBC is clearly defined. She specifically calls out people who twist the 14th amendment to try to make non-NBC people eligible when they are not.
#8. I agree. You don’t have to give up your citizenship in another country to be a citizen. This point was NOT stated in the video. NATIONALIZED citizens may have DUAL citizenship. This does disqualify them from being POTUS , because the founders did not want “divided loyalties”.
This is WHY the founders wanted NBC qualified applicants for POTUS.
NBC = Able to run for POTUS
NATURALIZED CITIZEN = Not qualified
I thank you so much for the VERY CIVIL back-and-forth and taking the time to reply.
92 posted on 2/19/2016, 5:31:48 PM by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he’s just “PRES__ENT” Obama = Without “ID”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
OBTW...and here was your reply:
To: musicman
Much of what you said we agree upon.
NBC status is required to be President - check
Being naturalized disqualifies someone from being NBC - check
Where we disagree:
Being born within the boundaries of the US as a requirement for NBC
Having more than one US parent citizen as a requirement
93 posted on 2/19/2016, 7:20:28 PM by taxcontrol ( The GOPe treats the conservative base like slaves by taking their votes and refuses to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
bkmk
He might have also been born with a potential claim or an avenue to American citizenship that other Canadians weren't born with.
However, he or his parents had to claim that citizenship here for that claim to be recognized.
He was born Canadian, in fact and paperwork, and wasn't born with the citizenship paperwork that naturally comes with Natural Born American citizenship.
He had to be naturalized to obtain it, same as in the court cases similar to Ted's situation.
We've been there and done that before and it's called "Naturalized Citizenship".
The very same judge in New Jersey (Masin) who ruled on Ted Cruz also ruled Obama to qualify as a natural born citizen. There were 21 state and federal court rulings finding Obama to be a natural born citizen.
Here ‘s an excerpt from the New Jersey ruling: Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
And from Arizona: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Yes, you have expressed this sentiment with me before.
That's an unfortunate and somewhat convoluted place to be, given the bigger picture and how variations of this subroutine are used to shape our thoughts, definitions and worldviews, but it's not surprising that some wind up there.
Please accept my best wishes for your speedy recovery!
I think Lincoln's point is correct. It is a fine thing to worry about constitutional matters, but there are more important and lesser important constitutional issues at stake, and if we focus on the lesser issues, we may find that we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm not happy about Cruz's eligibility status, but the way I see it, we have far bigger fish to fry.
Occam's razor cuts the other way. The statement makes perfect sense if the speaker and the other members of the committee knew that English statutory law regarding foreign born children was not already in effect in the U.S. No one replied that the proposed provision might be unnecessary because of the effects of English statutes.
Look up the term “Reception Statute.” English common law was adopted on an issue by issue basis, never in its entirety. The statement of the committeee member makes sense to me as other members might not have agreed with adopting English practice on that particular point.
Reception statutes are state laws. States adopted English common law (and in some cases certain statutory laws of England) through reception statutes or through judical rulings. That is how English common law (and English statutory law) continued to have effect in the U.S., giving some continuity to the legal system through the founding period.
There is no federal reception statute, and there is no Supreme Court ruling adopting English common law into federal law (except possibly in special narrow categories of federal jurisdiction such as in admiralty and maritime cases), let alone English statutes. And, despite the statement to the contrary in the New Jersey opinion, the Constitution did and does not "adopt[ ] English 'common law' " (see p. 10 at the link).
There is a principle of Consitutional interpretation that the English common law is a source for understanding the Constution, and that undefined terms should be "read in light of British Common law." To my knowledge, no court has (previously) ruled that undefined ters in the Constitution should be read in light of British statutes.
Ted may have been born a citizen of Canada. One would have to check Canadian laws to verify. Ted was born as citizen of the US via Title 8 section 1401 - Nationals and Citizens of the US at birth. As such, he was born a US Citizen, has always been a US citizen, has never been naturalized, and has never needed to be naturalized.
Cruz is a much easier case (for challenging eligibility) than Obama was.
Again, I am not saying that any court will actually hold Cruz ineligible.
After all, we are living at a time when the power to regulate interstate commerce includes such things as the power to regulate growing your own wheat on your own property and making it into bread for yourself to eat, and the power to regulate your CO2 "emissions", and when the power to tax includes the power to force people to purchase specific health insurance contracts.
Which only proves all these people felt the same way, not that it was correct. Given that the evidence and rationality demonstrate they are incorrect, it would appear that all the fools are on the same side.
The legal theory that Cruz’s attorneys have used is that there are only two classes of citizenship: born and naturalized; anyone who qualifies as a Citizen of the United States at Birth is also a Natural Born Citizen.
Well the first statement is supportable, but the second part is not.
When people are naturalized "at birth" because a "naturalization statute" says they are, they are still naturalized.
Also there is that bit in your favorite court ruling. (Wong Kim Ark.)
Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized,...
.
.
Thus far that legal theory has prevailed.
Yes, it's pathetic what passes for Judges nowadays, isn't it?
There's a lot of that going on on this and other websites.
You get to a point where you wonder what happened to reason and sanity?
By ignorant people who do not have the faintest idea regarding what that term means. As I keep pointing out, they are doing the same thing with marriage. And lately, bathrooms.
The modern judiciary is a parade of kookery wrapped up in the trappings of legal scholarship.
Your argument has descended to the point of comic relief. It only provokes smiles now.
Only insofar as you have to accept more flawed premises. The premises that make Obama legitimate are also flawed.
The 14th amendment is nothing but a big statute, making it just another form of naturalization.
Yeah, Dredd Scott didn’t much care for the Justices who ruled against him either. Neither did the Salem “witches.”
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.