Open request to Senator Cruz

[big bad easter bunny]

The Constitution requires that for you to be eligible to be president, both of your parents must be naturally born citizens. You do not meet that qualification, if I am wrong please straiten me out. If you get the nomination I promise you the democrats will do what the republicans are too scared to do.

Dear Ted I think you are awesome but we all need to know the answer to this.

[DiogenesLamp]

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 “The Father of the Constitution” Congressman 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. It will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

While this is what Madison said to get his political ally seated, what he *did* was entirely the opposite. When presented with the case of James McClure by his Ambassador to France, John Armstrong, Madison refused to countermand the claim by Armstrong that though McClure was born in Charleston South Carolina, he was NOT an American citizen because his father had not yet Naturalized when he was born.

Madison let the man languish in French Custody for nearly two years before pressure from a congressman and a supreme court Justice was brought to bear.

There is no mistaking that Madison knew exactly who James McClure was, because he was at the center of one of the most significant diplomatic incidents in US History up to that time. He was the owner of the first American ship ("The Horizon") seized and confiscated in accordance with Napoleon's "Berlin Decree", and the entire US Government was in an Uproar about it. Madison himself wrote several letters on the topic.

Madison may even have gone so far as to pick up his pen and write under his famous Pseudonym "Publis" to argue why McClure shouldn't be recognized as an American citizen. Certainly "Publius" knew things that only someone deep in the Madison government should have been privy too.

So it would appear that Madison had other opinions on the subject when it served his interest.

[Nero Germanicus]

Well Madison WAS a politician as well as a Founding Father.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well Madison WAS a politician as well as a Founding Father.

Yes, but we don't normally think of the founders as being anything other than noble and altruistic. We like our civic gods on pedestals.

[CpnHook]

Since his actual date of birth was unknown, (and having no proof to the contrary) the court had no justification for denying Inglis his inheritance,

Insofar as the burden of proof rests on the claimant, the Court could have denied the demand on that ground. The case Syllabus states "Evidence was given to prove that the demandant was not more than one year old when the British troops entered the City of New York, where he was born." A syllabus is an unofficial summary, and discussion on that point is hard to find in the opinions.

And he's correct. Inglis was 'entitled' to inherit as a citizen the same way ALL the members of the Founding generation were....with the 1795 Naturalization act.

Now this is just plain ridiculous; a monumental grasp at a straw.

NOWHERE in any opinion in this case is there one peep about the Naturalization Act. By contrast, the question of the time and situation of his birth is the thing being considered. The question as to Inglis's status hinged on his birth and the question of election due to the War. Naturalization does not come into play.

The key word your missing is 'resident'. It doesn't mean just being there....not even in England.

In Calvin's Case, Lord Coke indicated that an alien in amity coming into England, even if such entry was "but momentary and uncertain," owed a temporary allegiance to the Crown, and that such allegiance is "strong enough" that if he "hath issue here that issue is a natural born subject."

3. Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King's part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant' suæ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King's protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject;" Link

Justice Gray cites to Calvin's case.

Story illustrates this further down with his points concerning the laws of the state-

You can't properly take Story's later discussion on the statute to interpret his earlier discussion of the common law. You're mixing the apple and the orange.

In any case, the statute recognizes the temporary allegiance owing the state akin to what Lord Coke penned. Story then adds the following clause in the statute:

"That all persons passing through, visiting, or making a temporary stay in the state being entitled to the protection of the laws during the time of such passage, visitation, or temporary stay owe during the same allegiance thereto."

Such "temporary stay" persons, would owe a temporary allegiance "strong enough" that, if they "hath issue" during that uncertain period, such would be a natural born citizen.

I fail to see where the ordinance discussed by Story helps you out. He's discussing whether that ordinance in effect acted to naturalize Inglis's parent. That would be the effect of the "abiding" clause.

[CpnHook]

Still waiting for an answer to this post:

Just as I'm still waiting for answers to the many posts I made way back to you on the 1990 newspaper articles and the Hawaiian verifications.

Patience, they say, is a virtue.

[Fantasywriter]

LOL!! You are turning into a self-parody/joke. All you can do is dodge and evade. This is because if you answer my question you’ll be banned and you know it. You are pathetic.

& how many times do I have to tell you I answered your question? You blew past my answer, and now you demand that I either restate it, repost it, or link it.

Touch luck. Learn to read my answers the first time. That is your responsibility, not mine.

[Fantasywriter]

& btw, did the newspaper discussions take place on THIS thread? Yet you are the one who whines, moans, wails and bellyaches about people [allegedly] dragging arguments from one thread to another. What you falsely accuse others of doing, you actually do.

Projection and hypocrisy. Without them you’d have to slink away in ignominy, shame and defeat.

[CpnHook]

& how many times do I have to tell you I answered your question?

And how many times did I call out that lie and watch you sit helplessly, with no ability to prove me wrong?

[Fantasywriter]

A liberal calling a conservative a liar for telling the truth is nothing new. It’s as old as liberalism.

But if you still want to discuss newspapers, go back to that thread. As noted above, you screech like a scalded cat if you [falsely] claim that someone is carrying arguments over from one thread onto another. But like any good liberal, you think rules apply to conservatives but not to the Left. How arrogant and idiotic.

[CpnHook]

I was wondering how long it would take you to make that point.

No long. I'm usually about two steps ahead of you in these matters.

I am fully aware that the Monarchy had it's own version of "Natural Law." Their version of "Natural Law" was that the King was empowered by God to rule over the rest, and it was his divine right to do so.

But that aspect of natural law incorporated the idea of allegiance. And if you notice, that concept is common to both Blackstone and the Founders/Framers. Natural law concepts encompass far more than just the divine right of kings. Blackstone wrote on the matter of personal liberty -- you know that inherent, inalienable rights stuff. You are rather simple-minded in your outlook.

I gave you an entire article on the influence of Blackstone's natural law view on the Declaration and Constitution. You try reading it and getting past this "it's either all English natural law or some other natural law" view.

[Fantasywriter]

So according to the doctrine of jus soli that you have advocated since joining FR, and which *you* cited in your original post to *me*, is Cruz eligible or not?

[CpnHook]

What, giving up on Story?

The immediate exchange was about Tucker.

And why would I give up on Story? In Inglis he articulates very clearly the jus soli principle; and in the first and greatest SCOTUS case on citizenship, that quote is cited verbatim in support of the view that the common law in American recognized that same rule as in England. The dissent in WKA wanted to claim Story for their side, too. But Fuller couldn't really make the argument that the more general language from Shanks contradicted the clear language from Inglis.

I seem to recall seeing some St. George Tucker writings that you wouldn't like either, but i'm not going to go to a whole lot of trouble to find them.

Blah, blah. I showed you where Tucker point-blank says U.S. law is in agreement with Blackstone's statement that the children of aliens born in the realm are natural born subjects. To that you have yet to comment. (Not much to say is there with all that cognitive dissonance choking off the words.)

But, true to your usual form, I'm sure you'll find some passages from Tucker that aren't on point, post those alongside a photo of Tucker, do your magic hand-wave and declare you've "spanked me."

[CpnHook]

So according to the doctrine of jus soli that you have advocated since joining FR, and which *you* cited in your original post to *me*, is Cruz eligible or not?

I've addressed the "is jus soli the exclusive rule" question. Twice, in fact: Post 181 and Post 221.

See how easy it is to link to a prior when one in fact has made a post in which the question is first copied, then the reply given?

[MamaTexan]

The question as to Inglis's status hinged on his birth and the question of election due to the War. Naturalization does not come into play.

Naturalization most certainly does come into play. You can't become a 'natural-born citizen of something that doesn't yet exist, which is exactly WHY the Justice used the term 'entitled' and did NOT say 'natural born'.

---

Justice Gray cites to Calvin's case.

We weren't talking about Calvin's case.

----

You're mixing the apple and the orange.

No, your avoiding the point.

There were 2 things under discussion. First was Inglis entitled to claim citizenship due to being in the States, and 2) If so, did he have the right to inherent.

Story said No to the first question. He believed him to be a British citizen, (Page 28 U. S. 170) but he did acknowledge that without evidence to the contrary, he couldn't justify refusing him the ability to inherit a commercial property.

----

such "temporary stay" persons, would owe a temporary allegiance "strong enough" that, if they "hath issue" during that uncertain period, such would be a natural born citizen.

Story DOES NOT use the term 'natural born citizen'...merely the word 'citizen', nor does he say anything about 'having issue'. Don't put Cokes words into Story's mouth just because you think they agree. Story made it plain he dissented with the court's reasoning for allowing Inglis to claim citizenship.

And again, you might want to keep reading right past where you quoted

Their "temporary stay" is manifestly used in contradiction to "abiding," and shows that the latter means permanent intentional residence. So Mr. Chief Justice Spencer, in Jackson v. White, 20 Johns. 313, 326, considered it. He says "Residence in this state prior to that event [the declaration of independence] imported nothing as regards the election or determination of such residents to adhere to the old or adopt the new government. The temporary stay mentioned in the resolution of the convention passed only twelve days after the declaration of independence by Congress and within five days after the adoption of the declaration by the convention of this state, clearly imports that such persons who were resident here without any intention of permanent residence were not to be regarded as members of the state;"

[Fantasywriter]

Lol. You totally changed the question, and then claim you answered it.

The question is not whether jus soli is the exclusive rule.

The question is, according to the doctrine of jus soli that you have spent so much time on FR preaching, is Cruz eligible?

Yes or no?

[CpnHook]

Story just beat the ever living dog Sh*t out of your claim.

Right. Because Story stating plainly --

"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.

-- and then stating that if Inglis (having British parents) was born in NY after 1776 but before the British occupation, then he's a U.S. citizen.

Yeah, that one really undoes my claim (Not).

But it's another example of your avoidance technique of side-stepping clear language that refutes you by hauling out some other bit of text, waving your hands, jumping up and down, saying "Hah!" and posturing that you proved some point.

I'm sure it will play out this way with Tucker, too.

Again, you forget there were 100,000 Children born In the United States to British Loyalists before the treaty of Paris.

Some of whom remained U.S. citizens; some of whom by election became British subjects.

Again, you make points that go nowhere.

[DiogenesLamp]

No long. I'm usually about two steps ahead of you in these matters.

Ha! You just think you are two steps ahead. As with your current opinion on the topic, you just figure out which way the crowd is going and then jump in front and wave your flag.

Cpn Kook depicted below.

An original or deep thinker you are not.

I gave you an entire article on the influence of Blackstone's natural law view on the Declaration and Constitution. You try reading it and getting past this "it's either all English natural law or some other natural law" view.

And you get over this notion that the consequences of Independence have anything to do with Blackstone or British law. The United States left those waters for new ones first voyaged by the Swiss.

You see, the character of a Republic is substantially different from that of a Monarchy.

[CpnHook]

You totally changed the question, and then claim you answered it.

Because your question proceeded off a faulty premise (that I'm saying jus soli is the sole rule).

Obviously, jus soli isn't applicable for Ted Crus. The question for him turns on jus sanguinis which I've also said we inherited from English law operative at the time of the Constitution (e.g., the James Madison comment).

Clear enough?

[CpnHook]

And you get over this notion that the consequences of Independence have anything to do with Blackstone or British law. The United States left those waters for new ones first voyaged by the Swiss.

Why should I get over it when there are published articles that adopt that view? Your problem is your "either/or" way of looking at this: that 'influence' can only be ascribed to one source.

Besides, I have to recognize that this comment is coming from the person who thinks a Justice writing a paragraph raising a question on domicile, who then quotes a writer giving a rule on domicile, who then summarizes that writer's view on domicile -- is actually trying to make a point about citizenship! That is failure at the fundamental reading comprehension level. I suspect your grasp of these other sources is no better.

[Fantasywriter]

‘Because your question proceeded off a faulty premise (that I’m saying jus soli is the sole rule).’

Lol. You posted to me:

‘He claims that the jus soli rule of citizenship was not the original Constitutional view’

You, by contrast, have claimed too many times to count that it *was* the original rule.

Now you’re claiming otherwise?

Lol.

Well let’s hear you first say it in so many words: ‘Ted Cruz is eligible.’

Then we’ll laugh some more.