Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Historians have agreed throughout US history that all of our early Presidents were natural born citizens; that the grandfather clause was not for the sake of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, etc., but that it was for the likes of Alexander Hamilton (born on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean) and James Wilson (born in Scotland) that the grandfather clause was passed.
No serious historian has ever claimed otherwise.
Here is some documentation that establishes that fact.
“It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833)
“The exception as to those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was justly due to those men who had united themselves with the fate of the new nation, and rendered eminent services in achieving its independence ; and is, necessarily, of limited continuance.” James Bayard, A brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 96 (1833)
“Why was this exception then made ? From gratitude to those distinguished foreigners who had taken part with us during the Revolution.” John Seely Hart, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 71 (1860)
“The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that ” no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the tune of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president.” George Bancroft, History of the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America pg 346 (1866)
“The exception in favor of such persons of foreign birth as were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is now practically extinct. The distinguished patriots who had so faithfully served their adopted country during the revolutionary struggle, and out of respect and gratitude to whom this exception was introduced into the Constitution, have all passed away. No one, therefore, but a natural born citizen can now be elected to the office of President.” Henry Flanders, An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1877)
“The exception to the “natural born” qualification was the Convention’s way of paying an extraordinary compliment to Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, two distinguished members of the Convention who were foreign born. Of course, any other foreign- born citizen having the other qualifications would have been eligible, but the clause was drawn in favor of the two statesmen here mentioned.” Edward Waterman Townsend, Our Constitution: Why and how it was Made – who Made It, and what it is pg 186 (1906)
This understanding is also confirmed by James Madison's reasoning in the Smith case. He said, in essence, that Smith had been a citizen of the community that would become the State of South Carolina since his very birth:
"I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connection with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which they had for special considerations abolished. Suppose the state of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of government: Surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor."
Jeff Winston Says: “The grandfather clause was not included to make George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison eligible to be President. No competent historian claims that was the case.
The grandfather clause was included to make Alexander Hamilton (born on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean), James Wilson (born in Scotland) and other foreign-born patriots who helped give birth to our country, eligible to be President.
This is agreed on by all real historians and has been written about and commented on throughout US history.”
This is another bold face lie by the Fogbow/John Woodman/Dr. Conspiracy disciple Jeff Winston. The only reason to grandfather the first several presidents in was to do so until a 2nd generation U.S. born natural born Citizen came along that met the actual 35 years of age requirement after the adoption of the Constitution so pure allegiance to America would be guaranteed. How was that allegiance guaranteed? He was born to two U.S. citizen parents.
The "dog that did not bark" proves nothing.
I have long become accustomed to "experts" being both ignorant and wrong.
I think his original is sealed by court order because he was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro. I think his grandparents got the adoption annulled in 1971 when Obama Sr. came to Hawaii at the same time as did Stanley Ann.
Oh dear, look at me, I guess I have an agenda now.
I ABSOLUTELY agree. Jokes aside, he's COLD and CALCULATING.
He knows full well what he's doing. I find him to be the most disturbing of all the troll.
The lightweight is yourself. You opine out of ignorance and surety, and the one generally goes with the other.
Ted Cruz is a citizen because he and his mother met the qualifications of a law passed in 1934. Under the meaning of the term "natural citizen" as understood in 1787, he does not qualify.
No it doesn't, but the ignorant and foolish are claiming so.
Someone threw up in the thread again.
Yuk. Verbal vomit.
No, you messed up the whole thing. The world is better served when foolish little children remain silent.
This is an example of what I mean. You keep blubbering on like a retarded child.
Ah, here’s another one of those verbal dog poops which Little Jeremiah mentioned earlier.
Reading your material makes people dumber than those who avoid it.
You jump in and prove your namesake ... the poster has been posting his crap for weeks at FR and being refuted time and again. Now you’re going to demand, as he/she/it does when called for what he/she/it is that the spam he’s posted be reposted with the refutations. HAH! Nice try though ... did you know that the writers of the Constitution included the specific grandfather clause regarding citizenship and holding office for those residents before the Independence not for the reason found enumerated in the Federalist Papers? Well little Jeffy liar tells you and I expect you believe the deceptions ... but why?
You want Congress defining "arms" or "speech" or "the press" or "unreasonable search or seizure"?
Very good point. Exactly right.
Oh, look. More crap.
I'm willing to consider the possibility that Wong Kim Ark needs revision, but also recognize I don't understand the law enough to argue the details. I have downloaded the full decision for future reading. Hopefully I'll learn something from it.
That's a great place to start.
I also recommend the series of quotes and the discussion in post 295. I have gone to pains to include at least some discussion of the 3 legitimate sources of contrary opinion cited by birthers that I am aware of.
They also sometimes cite Chief Justice Marshall in The Venus (1814), but that case doesn't even use the term "natural born citizen" and had to do with how we treated US citizens living in a foreign country we were at war with, not citizenship itself.
They also sometimes cite Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont (1830), but those cases don't bear directly on the issue, either.
For that reason, I didn't include those as legitimate sources of contrary opinion.
'Birther' sources have claimed Won Kim Ark only dealt with citizenship, not with 'NBC.' My browser's search only found one instance of "natural born" and none of "natural born citizen" in the decision yet you report an "excruciatingly detailed 30 or 40 page discussion of the entire legal history of NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP" is there. I look forward to reading it as the former doesn't rule out the latter.
Be sure you are searching Justice Gray's Opinion in the case.
I just searched the text and found "natural born" or "natural-born" a total of 34 times, if I counted correctly. There are also other phrases like "natural subject." And the concepts are pervasive throughout dozens of pages.
Usually in that text you see "natural born subject," because "natural born subject" was the earlier historical term. They favorably quote Justice Gaston as saying that the terms "subject" and "citizen" are "precisely analogous," and then use the terms interchangeably:
The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
You said:
One of the frustrations of 'birthers,' and also of those undecided as to whether they should be birthers, is the refusal of courts to rule on the alleged issue of what is NBC.
Several courts actually have ruled that Obama, born in the US to a 17-year-old mother and a non-citizen father, is in fact a "natural born citizen" and is eligible. They have simply quoted Wong Kim Ark, and the US Supreme Court has refused to hear any appeals on those cases. Their refusal is again an affirmation that the lower courts are correct in their understanding of Wong.
We ignore what YOU claim they say. We have long ago discovered that you only post their words with the intent to TWIST them into a lie.
Like I said, if your name is attached to it, it's pretty much crap.
Post #308. Either that, or take your meds.
When you show up on a Conservative forum attacking Ted Cruz, then you're the one who needs to re-evaluate whose side you're on.
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.