Ted Cruz 'birther' lawsuit appealed to Supreme Court

UPI ^ | 04/22/2016 | Eric Duvall

[jdsteel]

Then you and I agree.

[jdsteel]

“In fact, you’re a slimy little person who has a purpose on FR and that purpose is not to pursue truth.”

If you are referring to me, your assumptions are all wrong. And your insults are unwarranted.

[jdsteel]

“I see 3 types of citizenship.”

You might also see the Loch Ness Monster, but you are in the vast minority! ; )

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Why does his father’s Cuban citizenship not accrue to Ted Cruz at birth?

It can, but then so could his mother’s. Therefore that would make him a citizen of Cuba, Canada and the USA at birth.

Not sure if that makes him NOT a US citizen at birth by virtue of his mother.

If he can renounce his Canadian citizenship, he can also renounce his Cuban citizenship ( if he really had it). The USA did not recognized Cuba since the Castro’s took over and that was before Cruz was even born.

As for Vattel’s insistence that that a person be born of a father who is a citizen, that then ignores the mother. I am unsure that the Framers had Vattel in mind when they used the phrase.

Be that as it may, that was written before the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th amendment was adopted.

With the 14th amendment in place, why should the mother’s citizenship now not be taken into consideration and only the father’s?

All of the above has to be taken into consideration in court ( that is, if it were to go to the SCOTUS ).

Thus fat, at least 7 state courts have ruled him eligible and that’s where we stand.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Larry Tribe, knows what the ‘original intent’ of the founders meant when they specifically used the phrase ‘natural born’

Fine by me. Did Tribe tell us exactly what they meant by that term? Did he direct us to any writing of any of the framers regarding how they understood the term?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: No court has ever disqualified any candidate for president. Never.

Let’s see where this logic is taking us — because no court has done something in the past, it cannot do that thing today or in the future?

Look, I am a Cruz supporter, but more than that, I want the constitution as originally intended, to be followed.

So, I really want this issue settled once and for all. It is good that this has been brought to the SCOTUS and if by careful reasoning, they disqualify him, so be it.

[JayGalt]

If you are honest with yourself and read the excellent material that has been gathered on the subject from the original writings at the time it is clear that the Founders thought that born on the soil was pivotal.

“The subject of whether jus soli or jus sanguinis applies to the United States came up in a debate in the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 1789, when James Madison said:

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.”

The main authority for the original meaning of “natural born” is William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume II, edited by St. George Tucker, a Founder, published in 1803, especially Chapter 10: The writings of Blackstone actually demand that a child be born of two citizens in land under the jurisdiction of the King.”The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England”

St. George Tucker, the editor, says this in a footnote:

Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”, but “considered as” does not change the definition of the term or the fact of the physical circumstances of birth, nor can conferring a privilege by statute change an eligibility requirement in the Constitution. The 1790 Act also provided that its terms only applied to the law then in effect, which was changed with the repeal of it in 1795.

When this Act was reconsidered, Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in the Naturalization Act of 1795.

The 1790 Congress made a mistake, using sloppy language, which was corrected it in the next act on the subject. It is also irrelevant. It is a naturalization act, and a statute cannot change the meaning of a term in the Constitution. For that one has to go back to the usage of the term before 1787, and that means usage by Coke and Blackstone, especially Coke, in Calvin’s Case. That case controls the meaning for the Founders, who regularly referred to those authors when they were unclear on legal terms of art. The early Congresses often made constitutional errors. Then as now they did not always think everything through. For that matter, the Framers made some mistakes in the Constitution, but we are stuck with those mistakes unless or until we amend it. That error was corrected by repeal. It should be noted they were on their own titles naturalization acts, not “natural born definition” acts.
http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

[JayGalt]

That is not an accurate rendition of Blackstone’s writings.
http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes you are right about the Declaration of independence, but it only established our intent to separate from the British Crown.

Based on a different understanding of natural law than what was put forth from the English point of view.

The US Constitution made us a nation.

The Declaration of Independence made us a Nation. The US Constitution wasn't written until 11 years later. Preceding it was the "Articles of Confederation" which was written in 1778 and ratified in 1781.

The US Constitution was our third governing document. The Articles of Confederation, along with our first President (John Hanson) are mostly forgotten now because they didn't last very long.

[little jeremiah]

My apologies. My insults were not directed towards you but the recent signup troll, Strac or something like that.

I should have been more careful, sorry!

[little jeremiah]

Yes, it is a troll, and possibly previous signup, who knows. I vote for paid political operative.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then you’ve shown you have a misunderstanding of how and why the constitution was written. There are procedures in place to amend it, as has been done.

And such procedures and their results are not ordinary statutes, meaning "laws." My point is still correct. Ordinary laws cannot amend the constitution. They cannot change it's meaning.

It also was never meant to be all encompassing, permitting laws and courts to rule on matters that it did not specifically address such as this one.

You aren't making sense. The requirement to be President is an age of at least 35 years. Who do you think will enforce that requirement?

Now apply that same enforcement power to the other requirement, that he be a natural citizen.

And the fact is the Constitution does not specify the meaning of NBC.

The Constitution does not specify the meaning of any word except for "Treason." It doesn't explain what is meant by the word "Arms" in the second amendment, and it does not do so because it is silly to explain the meaning of words in common understanding at the time.

Let me make this clear. The British word is "Subject." The Non-British, Swiss originated, Vattel influenced word is "Citizen."

By choosing the word "Citizen", they are automatically choosing the meaning that came from it's place of origin.

Once again, the word "Citizen" does not exist in the English law books of the time. Prior to 1770 It barely existed as an English word at all, and even then it only meant "Denizens of a City." Not members of a Nation.

That "Members of a Nation" meaning was utilized in only one place in the world at the time, and that place was Switzerland. (A Republic made up of a group of United City-States) This manner of using the word came to the founders through their reading of Vattel, and perhaps Rousseau, who was also Swiss, and who also used the word "citizen".

The English of the period simply did not use the word in the manner we have come to use it since. All English writings of the time used the word "Subject."

[DiogenesLamp]

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.”

In 1810, Madison had no problem keeping a man locked up in a French Jail on the basis that he was a British Subject, though he was known to have been born in Charleston South Carolina.

The Ambassador to France, General John Armstrong (A member of the Constitutional Ratification delegation) had made the determination that the man was a British Subject because his father had not naturalized before he was born, and Madison backed him up fully on this decision.

Apparently Madison was willing to believe whatever he needed to obtain whatever political goal he was interested in achieving at the time.

[Tau Food]

I want the constitution as originally intended, to be followed.

I think that a distinction should be made between how a Constitutional provision should be applied and who is empowered to apply the provision. The Constitution clearly provides a role for electors in choosing a president. When a constitutional provision empowers some person or group of persons to make a choice, it implicitly directs that the person or group of persons should do so with other constitutional provisions (such as eligibility qualifications) in mind.

If we as a people discover that electors are for some reason incapable of applying eligibility standards, then we should perhaps amend the Constitution and create new procedures. But, I suspect that proponents of new procedures are going to have a difficult time showing that the judiciary or some other body would be for some reason better than electors at applying eligibility standards. When I read the Constitution regarding the selection of presidents, I see the word electors, but I don't see the word judges.

[Strac6]

But since SCOTUS says what you claim is NOT in the Constitution, why are you arguing so hard for something that is extra-contititional?

Why all the temper tantrums over this ?

[Forty-Niner]

Another non-sequitor post by our illustrious well whatever....

Do you even read or follow these posts or do you just knee jerk at everything?

[DiogenesLamp]

Anarchy is here??? Now???

You know very well we are currently going through a slow-motion train wreck.

[DiogenesLamp]

I highly doubt that you would know since they never explained exactly what they meant by the term.

Well given that they followed the obviously Swiss meaning of the term, I would suppose they would follow the Swiss rules for creating Citizens.

Again, the term "Citizen" was not used in English (at the time) to describe members of a nation. It was only used to describe inhabitants of a City.

I'll prove it. Here is a page from an English Dictionary from 1768. Note how the word "Citizen" is defined?

Cit. F. [contracted from Citizen] 1. An inhabitant of a city. 2. A pert low towniman.

Citizen. F.[citoyen Fr.] A Freeman of a City. Raleigh 2. A townman; not a gentleman. Shakefp3. an Inhabitant. Dryden

Note the reference to the word being "French" before each definition? That's what that F. means. That the word originated from French.

The word didn't mean "Member of a Nation" until *WE* started using it that way. *WE* started using it that way because that is how Vattel, Rousseau and Burlamaqui used the word.

You will find precisely three usages of the word in Blackstone's works. All refer to the inhabitants of a City. None refer to usage of the word as a substitute for the word "Subject."

[DiogenesLamp]

OK, so Cruz’s mother is American. She never lost her citizenship and she was American at the time of Cruz’s birth.

Yes, but in 1787 only the *FATHER* could pass on citizenship. Even in English statute law, a child born outside of the King's jurisdiction could only be a Subject *IF* the mother was there with the permission of the Husband, and only if the Husband was English.

Females were not permitted to pass on their citizenship until 1922. *Only males* could do this. As a matter of fact, Congress passed a law (in 1854, I believe) that made statutory what had previously been a matter of common law; That when a foreign woman married an American man, she was automatically naturalized into an American Citizen. Again, only the Man's citizenship mattered.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Females were not permitted to pass on their citizenship until 1922. *Only males* could do this

So, how does that policy translate to “natural born” today?

Does that not conflict with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?