Open request to Senator Cruz

[CpnHook]

So do you agree that jus soli was not the original intent, or do you claim that it was?

I think the Framers' point of view was essentially the English view they had known, one that I submit was expressed by James Madison in the passage most everyone should about have memorized:

"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[.]"

So place governs in 99.99 percent of cases simply because a relative few are born abroad. But this is open to recognition of jus sanguinis as to foreign births. England recognized that by statute. I don't think Madison (or anyone else) had Vattel in view.

[Fantasywriter]

So now apply that to Cruz’ case.

[AmericanVictory]

I believe he misrepresents the view of Story. In Shanks v. Dupont Story specifically held that on matters of citizenship the Founders looked to natural law not common law, after he discussed common law as being what he termed "municipal" law to distinguish it from natural law.

In the case of the lawsuits brought about the situation of the Great Pretender now occupying the Oval Office only one federal case that I know of was granted standing but was then dismissed on relatively unconvincing grounds. The issue has yet to be actually tried. In essence, with the advent of the 2008 cult of personality the rule of ridicule was substituted for the rule of law by a subservient lamestream. Don't expect a person of Cruz' conservative principals and reasoning and oratorical ability to get the same pass.

[CpnHook]

There seems something of a consensus among the Constitutional scholar types who have opined that Cruz is eligible by virtue of his citizen mother (as there was with George Romney in '68). I think it highly unlikely a court will intervene to deny his candidacy.

Now, do you agree with the Birthers that Vattel was incorporated into Article II natural born citizen? Or are you anti-Birther on that point? You are your usual evasive self.

[AmericanVictory]

I suggest you read Marshall’s opinion in the case more thoroughly. He was dissenting in part and concurring in part. The significance of what he said for the present discussion was that he said that the point that the case really turned upon was one determined by the law of nations and, on that point, cited Vattel’s well known definition.

[Fantasywriter]

‘You are your usual evasive self.’

Lol. You’re one to talk. I have asked you numerous times for your ***personal*** opinion, based on all your jus soli comments, as to whether ***you***, not a court, believe that Cruz is eligible. It isn’t a difficult question. It’s merely a question that you refuse to answer.

I wonder why.

[AmericanVictory]

What is it that you say was the view of St. George Tucker on the point and where did he say what you assert he said?

[AmericanVictory]

With all due respect, I do not think you are accurately representing the opinion of St. George Tucker. Here is what he actually said about the clause in question:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted), is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. ...The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member of this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated amongst us all the evils of Pandora's Box.

This does not sound like St. George Tucker thought that one parent could have allegiance to any other country nor the person be born in another country to come within what the Constitution meant.

[CpnHook]

I suggest you read Marshall’s opinion in the case more thoroughly. He was dissenting in part and concurring in part.

Though the part where Marshall quotes Vattel is in the dissenting portion.

The significance of what he said for the present discussion was that he said that the point that the case really turned upon was one determined by the law of nations and, on that point, cited Vattel’s well known definition.

But the case turned on the question of domicile, not citizenship. That is the portion of Vattel Marshall addresses:

A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."

Citizenship wasn't at issue nor discussed.

I've read his opinion closely.

[CpnHook]

It isn’t a difficult question. It’s merely a question that you refuse to answer.

And I answered the question. Personal opinion doesn't really count for much in law. That's part of the problem with this issue is a lot of amateurs running around around saying what they "feel" is right.

On the topic of the foreign-born, there is just not the extensive history and case law that exists as to the native-born. Where history is clear, I will state it clearly. Like that Vattel isn't part of Article II. No vagueness there.

You've yet to address that.

[freepersup]

Using the founder's INTENT- Cruz is out. However, the left has changed the rules, and Cruz is just as qualified now, especially if he produces forensic evidence of his birth- unlike that son of a bitch in the white hut. Why is it so hard for all of the research scholars here at Free Republic to understand what it was the founders intended? LOYALTY to our nation!!! Soebarkah is the poster child for what wasn't intended. 14 years a resident, 35 years old and born of citizen parents. Granted this is BEFORE test tube babies and sperm donors... so a two parent household was the only conceivable family structure considered capable of teaching maximum loyalty to one's country, and by God, they wanted both parents to be US citizens... for that very reason. I say the added requirement of having to be born on US soil is just and applicable, creating a third class of citizen, BUT- only for holding the office of President or Vice President. The requirement is IMMATERIAL for any other purpose. DUH!

By the way, we are no longer a just and moral nation so the Constitution is out the window. Stupid is as stupid does. We are reaping what we have sown as a rudderless nation. Moral relativism WAS NOT what the founders had in mind, but they knew what pitfalls awaited one.

The Federalist Papers are the owner's manual for the Constitution. In it, I can't find protection for abortions, transgenders or Muslim sleeper agents in the White House.

That's all I got- an eighth grade comprehension. Abe Lincoln only made it through third grade. I'm not exactly sure what the target audience was for the Founders, but I think they used the KISS principle.

[AmericanVictory]

Marshall says in The Venus, after quoting Vattel:

I think I cannot be mistaken when I say that, in all the views taken of this subject by the most approved writers on the law of nations, the citizen of one country residing in another is not considered as incorporated in that other, but is still considered as belonging to that society of which he was originally a member.

So, according to Marshall's opinion, one who is a citizen of anther country, one other than America, is not "incorporated" into America. His loyalties are, according to Marshall, pledged to another country, not America. So one born of a foreign father, in that day, was not incorporated into American society. This is the very split which Jay warned about in his letter that is so often cited by those who study this subject. The fact that the case is about what happens to the property of such a foreigner when the country of which he is a citizen turns from being at peace with the U.S. to being at war with the U.S. does not change the fact that Marshall viewed the law of nations as separating the natural born or indigenes from those whose loyalties are split.

[CpnHook]

With all due respect, I do not think you are accurately representing the opinion of St. George Tucker.

There is more to Tucker that can be brought to bear to support what I'm saying. But the salient point in that quote is he uses "native born" in place of "natural born" regarding presidential eligibilty. "Native born" most always refers simply to those born on the soil. And Tucker here uses that interchangeably with "natural born."

The rest of that quote comports with what I posted upstream about the Framers' concern being with some titled noble insinuating himself into American politics. I see nothing there where Tucker envisages an issue with someone born here.

[WildHighlander57]

Well said, freepersup!

There is no doubt whatsoever as to Cruz’ loyalty.

We know his family & background, while 0’s is still that, “0”.

And, I don’t see why Phil Berg and the rest of the lawsuit filers didn’t focus on “35 years old” and not the NBC part; one needs the birth cert to prove age, and there may have been better success using that angle.

[CpnHook]

he fact that the case is about what happens to the property of such a foreigner when the country of which he is a citizen turns from being at peace with the U.S. to being at war with the U.S. does not change the fact that Marshall viewed the law of nations as separating the natural born or indigenes from those whose loyalties are split.

Despite your creative exegesis of Marshall’s words, you still lack any statement by him to the effect Vattel supplies the rule of law on birth citizenship in the U.S.

It can be very difficult to persuade a person who believes they see something that the something isn't there. (Those ninja frogmen appear in post-crash photos and won't leave.) But let me approach this from a different angle.

In his dissent in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, Chief Justice Fuller was urging that Vattel's natural born citizen rule (as opposed to the majority s common law rule) provide the decision in the case. Yet Fuller says nothing about John Marshall and The Venus. Now, if Marshall were saying what you claim for him, then Fuller absolutely blew a great opportunity to bolster his argument by showing his illustrious predecessor likewise cited to Vattel for the American rule on citizenship.

But Chief Justice Fuller knew Chief Justice Marshall didn't say that. You're merely seeing what's not there.

[DiogenesLamp]

I believe he misrepresents the view of Story. In Shanks v. Dupont Story specifically held that on matters of citizenship the Founders looked to natural law not common law, after he discussed common law as being what he termed "municipal" law to distinguish it from natural law.

And this I believe. Justice Story is often trotted out by these Obots to support their position, but In the several years I've been learning about and researching this topic, I have ran across examples where Story appears to be supporting the Natural Law position.

I think these people make a point to take advantage of confusion and ambiguity to assert support for their position.

One of my premier arguments for asserting natural law regarding citizenship is by pointing out that *THE DOCUMENT* which created American Citizenship was unequivocally based on natural law, and indeed was an explicit rejection of the English Law concept of subjectude. Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence borrowed heavily from Emerrich de Vattel's principles and arguments.

The Declaration even says it was based on natural law:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

To argue that the document and principles which *CREATED* American citizenship were based on English Monarchical law, is just idiocy. If we followed English law, we couldn't have become independent. We couldn't have created citizens, because under English law, allegiance is perpetual. What these idiots would have people believe is that we rejected that part of English law, but followed the rest. No, we rejected the whole concept of English Subjectude, including the manner in which it was conveyed.

In the case of the lawsuits brought about the situation of the Great Pretender now occupying the Oval Office only one federal case that I know of was granted standing but was then dismissed on relatively unconvincing grounds. The issue has yet to be actually tried. In essence, with the advent of the 2008 cult of personality the rule of ridicule was substituted for the rule of law by a subservient lamestream.

Yes, the courts have become a mockery of justice. They are more of a religion now than anything else. The stuff they say nowadays has no basis in history or law.

Don't expect a person of Cruz' conservative principals and reasoning and oratorical ability to get the same pass.

I have been saying from the beginning that I expect to see these very same people who defend Obama, pull out the long knives if and when Cruz secures the nomination. They are hypocrites, and they do not care about the truth, they only care what they can assert to give them a political advantage.

[AmericanVictory]

Wong Kim Ark is not about presidential eligibility. Fuller's dissent in it is based on what he knew was the founder's view on citizenship, the same as what Story said in Shanks v. Dupont. All three are in accord. The view was widely held and so there was no need for Fuller to quote Marshall. You are arguing that a failure to mention Marshall indicates disagreement with Marshall. It is a weak argument, to say the least. I don't think you have any actual quote from a decision or a founder that indicates that the English common law was used to determine issues of citizenship. A "subject" is not a "citizen." Citizens are not subjects; they are the sovereign in our republic. The British impression of American seamen that precipitated the War of 1812 was a stark illustration of the difference between the concept of "subjects" of a monarch and "citizens" of a republic. It is you who are projecting your wishes. I refer you to the well known letter of John Jay.

[DiogenesLamp]

When you finally say something about John Marshall

and Bushrod Washington,

(BOTH members of the Ratifying convention, BOTH Supreme Court Justices) then I *MIGHT* bother to bitchslap you down about Kent, (Not a delegate to either the convention or state ratifying convention ) Tucker, (Not a delegate to either the convention or state ratifying convention ) and Swift, (Also Not a delegate to either the convention or state ratifying convention ).

Perhaps someday you will grasp the significance of Provenance. You are an idiot and I have no respect for you.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'll grant you I've been contending with a good bit of 8th grade level research and debating skills here.

Well that's a shame. They should try to keep it more on your first grade level of comprehension. Hear that people? You guys need to go easier on the slow kid.

[CpnHook]

Wong Kim Ark is not about presidential eligibility.

Neither is The Venus. So what's your point?

C.J. Fuller in his dissent very much has presidential eligibility on his mind:

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."

Fuller specifically refers to the Constitution, "natural born citizen," and presidential eligibility. He complains bitterly that the majority opinion makes someone like Wong presidential eligible. Now, again, if he thought his illustrious predecessor John Marshall had already laid out that Vattel was the source for the Framers' choice of "natural born citizen" why on earth does Fuller omit that? (He omits it because Marshall doesn't say that).

the same as what Story said in Shanks v. Dupont.

The Shamks case and Ignlis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor were companion cases, argued at the same time and with opinions in both cases referring to the other. In his concurring opinion in Inglis Justice Story CLEARLY adopts a jus soli view on birth citizenship:

“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign…. That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Read his words: 1) citizenship requires only that birth a) occura on the soil of the sovereign and b) under the protection of the sovereign (i.e., NO mention of "citizen parents"); 2 Inglis's parents were British; and 3) if he was born during the time when the U.S. was in control of New York, then Inglis was a citizen. " Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.” Here, he's reciting the same rule laid down by Blackstone.

It is absurd to argue Story stands in support of some "two citizen parent" rule. He was cited in support of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark and for good reason.

I don't think you have any actual quote from a decision or a founder that indicates that the English common law was used to determine issues of citizenship.

And you don't have one that says Vattel was used. But I do have a quote from a Founder and Framer -- Alexander Hamilton -- indicating that Constitutional terminology is to be understood by reference to English law. Writing on the matter of the carriage tax, he states:

"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms—there is none. . . If the meaning of the word excise is to be sought in the British statutes, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an excise, and then must necessarily be uniform and liable to apportionment; consequently, not a direct tax. {W]here 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.”

What Hamilton urges by way of Constitutional construction foreshadows what the SCOTUS states in Wong Kim Ark -- understand the meaning of our Constitutional language by reference to this language and history of the English common law.

A "subject" is not a "citizen."

Not in all respects. But in stating the birth-status rule, judges and writers used "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" in interchangeable fashion. Justice Story does that in the excerpt from Inglis above. Another is Zephaniah Swift, writing in 1795:

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795)

I refer you to the well known letter of John Jay.

Well-known, and well misread by Birthers. Under your proffered meaning of "natural born citizen" (requiring citizen parents, which Washington didn't have) Jay would be suggesting to Washington a presidential eligibility requirement that excluded Washington himself (as well as the entire Revolutionary generation). Yet neither Jay (nor Washington) acknowledges that in the least.

What they meant by "natural born citizen" isn't what you think they meant.