Canadian-born Ted Cruz says “facts are clear” he’s eligible to be president

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ^ | 07/21/2013

[Ira_Louvin]

Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.

President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.

[Red Steel]

John C. Eastman, , Dean of Chapman University’s law school, who testified before Congress and

an excerpt of an article of what really the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" means - his testimony before Congress:

Dr. John C. Eastman, Dean of Chapman University’s law school in Orange, California, is among the leading scholars in the nation on constitutional law and has testified before Congress on the issue of birthright citizenship. Eastman states plainly that the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of allowing another country to wage demographic warfare against the U.S. and reshaping its culture by means of exploiting birthright citizenship.

“We have this common understanding of when you come here to visit, that you are subject to our jurisdiction. You have to obey our traffic laws. If you come here from England, you have to drive on the right side of the road and not on the left side of the road,” he said. “But the framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind two different notions of ‘subject to the jurisdiction.’ There was what they called territorial jurisdiction— you have to follow the laws in the place where you are—but there was also this more complete, or allegiance-owing jurisdiction that held that you not only have to follow the laws, but that you owe allegiance to the sovereign. And that doesn’t come by just visiting here. That comes by taking an oath of support and becoming part of the body politic. And it is that jurisdiction that they are talking about in the 14th Amendment.”

Then by definition—and one would think common sense—legal tourists here to enjoy Disneyland and illegal immigrants who broke into the country clearly do not fall under this blanket of allegiance-owing jurisdiction. Accordingly, their giving birth on American soil does not make their children citizens. ... "

- - - - - - - -

From the article that was posted here in 2010.

American Jackpot: The Remaking of America by Birthright Citizenship

[DiogenesLamp]

“William Rawle is particularly bad because he was NOT a DELEGATE, because he was the Son of a British loyalist,(British Mayor of Philadelphia.)...”

Actually, his step=father (Samuel Shoemaker) was the British Mayor of Philadelphia. His real father (Francis Rawle)died when he was about three.

Why are you insistent on splitting hairs? Is not the adopted child of a step father referred to as "Son"?

“... trained in England in explicitly British Law, ...”

As were many of the Founders. In fact, one of the Framers, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, attended the same London law school as Rawle (Middle Temple). Mr. Pinckney also attended the lectures of Justice William Blackstone, the author of “Commentaries of the Laws of England”.

The difference is, Mr. Pinckney et al were familiar with America's decades long infatuation and enthusiasm for the writings of Vattel, and in Constitutional deliberations they adopted many ideas that were explicitly contrary to their English Law training. Our argument is that among them, they replaced the Old Feudal Common law basis of subjectude with the Vattel principle of Citizenship in a Republic.

Benjamin Franklin (a Framer) was also a President of the Abolition Society of Pennsylvania (at the time it was called the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery). He sent Congress a petition in 1790 asking them to abolish slavery.

John Jay (not a Framer, but author of the “Permit me to hint” letter) was also an abolitionist (although he argued for a more gradual freeing of slaves). In 1777, he introduced legislation to end slavery in New York. In 1785, he was President of the New York Manumission Society. As the Governor of New York in 1790, he signed An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery.

Abolition was waxing during that era, and the freedom we won from England inspired many to push for freedom for the slaves. The argument is not that supporting abolition is unusual, its that some passionate people appear to have intentionally pushed the "English Law" version of citizenship because it suited their goals, and not because it was correct. Rawle is the most influential of these.

Franklin and others have committed acts and written commentary indicating that they did not follow the English Common law theory of perpetual subjectude by birth on the King's land. In other words, they didn't agree with Rawle.

Alexander Hamilton: In a 1795 legal brief on carriage taxes, Hamilton begins by saying it is shame that some terms in the Constitution are ill-defined. And he ends the brief by saying, “... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”

Yes, but this only applies to the statutory language of those British Statutes which carried over into the United States. Statutes like "Corruption of blood" "Primogeniture", Debtor's Prison, etc. were thrown out, along with the Official State Church and Lese Majeste.

Hamilton's meaning is not wrong, it just doesn't apply to statutes we didn't keep. The Statute of Perpetual allegiance by birth on the King's land is one of those we did not keep. Why would we? It's positively feudal.

By now, you've certainly seen this:

Jeff would have us believe this is merely the Opinion of Samuel Roberts, (tacky little podunk judge from bugtussel sticks Pennsylvania.) as if he could have gotten away with that for forty years, and a second publishing of his widely circulated and referenced Pennsylvania law book. But Jeff is a fool.

Oliver Ellsworth: As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1797 district court of Connecticut’s Case of Isaac Williams wrote, “The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution.”

In that, he is explicitly contradicted by James Madison.

Here, and Here, and quoted below.

What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

Per SOP, DL is FOS.

Wow! What Whit! What insight! What the h*ll are you doing here instead of playing mud pies with the other children?

[DiogenesLamp]

Those powers are enumerated to be with Congress. “Rule of naturalization” means Congress decides who is and who is not a natural born citizen.

No, Congress decides who is and who is not a "naturalized" citizen. Congress cannot make "natural" that which is not already "natural."

Passing a law, or changing a law is an act of man, not of nature.

[Jeff Winston]

You may be interested in some further information about William Rawle in 571.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

“Jim, I am wondering how long we here at FreeRepublic have to continue to put up with the abuse of this poster.”

Oh good grief, stop being a crybaby and tattletale!! Be a man!

[Tau Food]

No you f***ing sh*thead, it's your CONTINUOUS, NEVER ENDING CLAIMS THAT THEY AGREE WITH YOU THAT IS IDIOTIC.

Vattel is so lucky that someone like you has chosen to introduce his eighteenth century foreign theories to twenty first century Americans. Where would we be without you and your subtle analysis?

Thank you, Jeff Winston, for acquainting me with William Rawle:

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." - William Rawle

William Rawle was an American legal scholar who wrote about our Constitution. Vattel had been dead for twenty years before our Constitution was even drafted, so he probably gave it very little thought. He had never even heard of the United States of America. Our first president, George Washington, appointed Rawle to provide legal representation for the United States of America in Pennsylvania. Washington thought so highly of Rawle that he wanted Rawle to serve as his Attorney General for the United States.

If Rawle couldn't be persuaded to accept this foreign theory you peddle (i.e., that a "natural born citizen" can only be born to two citizen parents), how can you possibly expect Americans to surrender to and be burdened by that foreign theory? What's wrong with an American answer to an American question?

[Tau Food]

Oh good grief, stop being a crybaby and tattletale!! Be a man!

Listen, you just save room on your car's bumper for a "Ted Cruz - 2016" sticker! In three short years, all of this Vattel-birth certificate-Kenya-NBC baloney will be for you nothing more than another ugly, twisted nightmare that you survived. You're going to be just fine, better than ever!

Ted Cruz - 2016

[Jude in WV]

I am an adult education teacher. I had a female student a couple of years ago who was from Laredo, Texas. She told me that her husband was in prison for helping sneak illegal immigrants into the country. She also told me that when she lived on the border, people are allowed to go back and forth to “shop”. She said that when pregnant Mexican women know they are in labor, they take the bus into the US to “shop”. She said they go to a US hospital to have the baby. She said they do this so that when the child is 18, he is a US citizen and can come back here for an education and job.

[DiogenesLamp]

The one and only time Congress used the exact words “Natural Born Citizen” is in the very FIRST Naturalization Act of 1790 during the second session of the 1st Congress. The specific wording is, in part:

“...And 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....”

I would draw your attention to the words "Considered as". As you are no doubt aware, these words mean that something is "similar", but not the exact same thing.

Congress (and Washington) recognized that they could not "make" a "natural" citizen, but through their power of "naturalization" they could make something which could be "considered as" a "natural" citizen.

I will further point out, that if you read further down in the "naturalization act of 1790", you will discover that if the Child had a father which had never been a resident of the United States (foreign father) he was not recognized as having any citizenship at all, let alone "natural" citizenship.

Thus the status of citizenship is obtained at birth. A person who has citizenship at birth has no needs to be naturalized.

You are confused about this. When Congress passes a law that makes someone a citizen, it *IS* naturalization. It is NOT "natural born", it is "by the authority of congress to naturalize."

Congress selected the "at birth" point in time by the law they passed. They chose to do so because it was an obvious and convenient time to place the mantle of citizenship, but make no mistake. Congress could have picked another point in time if they had so wished.

I will further point out, that Congress SPECIFIED an age limit for the mother. If the mother is too young, the child doesn't get the citizenship. Also Congress had SPECIFIED a residency requirement. If the child did not live in the United States for a specified period of years, the child did NOT get the citizenship.

So, to recap, Congress specified "at birth", they specified the mother's age, and they specified a residency requirement.

Do you not see that having strings attached makes this sort of citizen something OTHER than a "natural citizen"?

[DiogenesLamp]

At first I thought I would address your points. Then I remembered that i've done this many times before, and the next time you will simply REPEAT THE SAME CRAP AGAIN.

You aren't interested in clarity, you aren't interested in understanding, you aren't interested in reason, facts, logic, accuracy, history or even good policy.

You are interested in pushing your psychosis on the rest of us, and that is ALL you are interested in.

[DiogenesLamp]

The sad thing is they won't engage you in an intelligent conversation.Just call you names which usually means they don't have the intellect to respond intelligently,or you have "Blown" them out of the water the truth and they are standing there looking stupid. So they call you names.

You are mistaken. "They" will engage you in intelligent conversation. What they will NOT do is continue to grant respect to a psychotic loon who simply keep repeating crap which have been addressed and disproved a dozen times and more.

The Loon will take anything, ANYTHING, and try to twist it into supporting his argument. He explicitly ignores statements by historical people which contradict his argument, and he never corrects his behavior when he is called out on it.

We started out having an "intelligent conversation", but it only works if there's intellectual honesty on both sides. Jeff has made a conscious decision to be intellectually dishonest, so there is no further point in being civil to him.

[painter]

"You cannot expect anyone to take you seriously when you suggest that Hillary Clinton could win an election with all her scandals."

If you think Hillary doesn't have a chance to get elected you are the biggest fool here.

If the Republicans don't nominate a good conservitive like a Ted Cruz or a Rick Perry..etc and the GOPE jam another "moderate" down our throats SHE will be the next presidrnt!

[DiogenesLamp]

Another thing. Whenever Jeff makes contact with someone new to the thread, he always presents himself as a reasonable and honest searcher for the truth who has "Discovered" (Thanks to Fogbow and "Dr. Conspiracy") this entire set of "facts" which demonstrate "objectively" that we use British Law to decide American citizenship.

If you simply accept what he says, he's still oh so sweet, sugar won't melt in his mouth, but if you challenge him on anything, he deflects, he repeats, he lies, and eventually he snarls.

He is exactly like Nurse Annie Wilkes from "Misery", who starts off seeming sane, but before the plot is done, is easily recognizable as a dangerous psychotic.

Here is a depiction of him below.

Sane appearing Jeff.

.

Real Jeff.

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, and English Common Law has no standing where the Constitution specifically defines the powers of the branches of government.

Nor where it has been intentionally omitted. Primogeniture, Lese Majeste, Corruption of Blood, and Debtor's prisons were all part of English Law.

We did not and do not follow these English Common laws, and we did not explicitly state we weren't going to follow them, (except for "corruption of blood", which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.) we just didn't include them in American law. We eliminated many of them by Category (cruel and unusual punishments, Freedom of Speech.) without direct reference to them.

The point is, the founders didn't bother to make an explicit list of English laws which were overthrown. They figured intelligent people could tell which ones were in obvious conflict with American Principles. As James Madison said:

What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

Everything you said is true, but I think you pass by an important point. It is axiomatic that the Founders believed in collective Expatriation in 1776, because that is exactly what they did.

The issue was much debated in subsequent years with some saying yes, and others saying "no", but the fact is, from the British law perspective, the answer was uniformly "no." There was no dissent on this at all.

Sir Michael Foster, Discourse on High Treason

Sect. 1. With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places. This is what We call Natural Allegiance, in Contradistinction to that which is Local. The Duty of Allegiance, whether Natural or Local, is founded in the Relation the Person standeth in to the Crown, and in the Privileges He deriveth from that Relation. Local Allegiance is founded in the Protection a Foreigner enjoyeth for his Person, his Family or Effects during his Residence here; and it Ceaseth whenever He withdraweth with his Family and Effects. Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member; and on the peculiar Privileges He deriveth from that Relation, which are with great Propriety called his Birthright. This Birthright nothing but his own Demerit can deprive Him of; it is Indefeasible and perpetual. And consequently the Duty of Allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is inseperably Connected with it, is in Consideration of Law likewise Unalienable and Perpetual.

[DiogenesLamp]

You're a bold-faced liar.

I would think that you might know a bold-faced liar when you see one, but then the thought occurs to me that you are just so deluded you can't tell what is a lie and what is the truth.

You can't name even one, and prove it

How about your NEVER ENDED statement that ALL THE AUTHORITIES IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE AGREE WITH ME!!!!! ?

How about the time you quoted Robert Bingham, and INTENTIONALLY CUT OFF HIS WORDS WHICH COMPLETELY CLARIFIED HIS MEANING AND CONTRADICTED YOU?

It just goes on and on. You never stop. You never recognize when you are making a wild claim that is simply over the top, you JUST KEEP REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER!

And how about that Bullsh*t "WALL OF TEXT"? You claim that everyone on your crazy quilt list is an "Authority" and that everyone of them supports you.

BOTH assertions are wrong, and it has been pointed out to you so many times that we can only conclude that you just want to continue lying about it.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think you are in way over your head in this discussion. Even the FogBow people admit that Jefferson used Vattel as the BASIS of our Declaration of Independence, His notes on the Declaration are all over his copy of "Droit des Gens" and the ideas which were eventually adopted as American Principles show up no where else than Vattel's "Law of Nations."

As I mentioned, it is no wonder that the American Republic would have been based on the writings of a SWISS philosopher. Switzerland was the ONLY NATION IN THE WORLD which had overthrown a Monarchy and established a Republic.

It was the only thing remotely similar to what the American Colonies were attempting to create. I see it as natural that they would look at the organization of the Swiss government and the writings of Swiss Jurists, because no other facsimile of what they wanted to create existed elsewhere in the world, or in History.

[DiogenesLamp]

Writing to Jeff, 1rudeboy said:
This is an interesting thread. I generally stay away from them, but you've provided me reading material for a week.

Circular reasoning can be pursued for infinity.

But what's really interesting are the visceral reactions to your citations. In that week's worth of reading, I might find some holes in your reasoning, or I might not. But these people are like members of a cult.

We are like people REACTING to members of a cult, to which they have been exposed far too long. Jeff is a crack pot. If you want to find out, just FIND one of those "holes in his reasoning" to which you referred.

At first he'll politely disagree. If you keep insisting that it is a hole, eventually the crazy will come out in him.

Here, i'll even help you out in finding one of those "holes" in his reasoning. Ask him how George Washington is a "natural born citizen" of the United States of America, rather than a "natural born subject" of King George III.

When you're done with that "HOLE" in his reasoning, ask him why the 14th amendment was created.

Jeff's sanity will not withstand scrutiny.

[MamaTexan]

Are you aware of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania?

I'd seen that one before, too, but your re-post allowed me to save it to my research files, so thank you!

-----

This concept of natural-born citizenship occurring only via blood-right is SO simple, and despite the fact everyone wants to point at the 1790 Immigration Act that says children 'shall be deemed natural-born' citizens, they always forget one thing.

It's STILL an Immigration Act, so it cannot MAKE anyone a natural born citizen, that is ultra vires...or beyond the legal scope & power of Man, which is why its considered a Law of Nature.

The only thing the original Act did was 'entitle' members of the Founding generation to the privileges an immunities OF natural-born citizens.

March 6, 1790
……and John Sockman, first taking and subscribing the oath of allegiance to this commonwealth before two Justices of the peace shall be deemed adjuded and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born citizens.

Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts
Top of page 510

This is the only reason they, and they alone are eligible for the president/Vice Presidents Offices despite not being 'natural-born' citizens.

------

and yes, Larry - Moe and Curly.....I knew.

(grin)