Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

Bloggerrs and Personal | 2 Sep 13 | Xzins

[rolling_stone]

yes very clear English you have not researched the subject you are discussing

It’s a slam dunk.

who are you trying to kid? yourself? certainly not freepers.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

7 FAM 1130 Page 8 of 69
UNCLASSIFIED (U)
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

[noinfringers2]

Question. Can/are babies born on USA soil to illegal aliens be subjects who are ‘.. subject to the jurisdiction...’ of the USA, para phrasing 14th Amendment, if the baby is taken back and raised in the mother’s country?

[AmericanVictory]

Certainly. The arguments made from statements in Congress that were made during the passage of the four Alien and Sedition Acts about "natural born citizens" had nothing whatsoever to do with the phrase as used in the Constitution concerning presidential eligibility. Rather they had to do with those born here as opposed to those coming here and then being naturalized. In fact the debate of the time that led to the Alien and Sedition Acts resembled in some respects the present debate concering illegal aliens, who are sometimes referred to as an "invasion" particularly from Mexico.

At the time of the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts we were in what became known as the "undeclared war witih France." The concern was on the part of the Federalists with what they saw as an invasion of Frenchmen bent on undermining our republic.

Here are some links where you can find out about these events and the attitudes of the era which led to the Alien and Sedition Acts:

http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/history/chapter7section2.rhtml

http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp

http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-alien-and-sedition-acts.html

http://www.firstamendmentstudies.org/wp/alien.html

http://www.enotes.com/alien-sedition-acts-1798-reference/alien-sedition-acts-1798

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter07/alien.cfm

In the fourth linked site above you can see where John Marshall was among those sent to France by John Adams, as a prominant Federalist, to try and resolve matters without success. Given the popular sentiment against France at that time because of its undeclared war upon us, it scarcely seems that Marshall would have given the recogntion that he did to Vattel and the law of nations in his opinion in The Venus decision in 1814 that he did and his recognition of the law of nations as heeded smong the founders in matters of citizenship if he had known (and he certainly would have known) that the presidential eligibility phrase was derived from English common law rather than the law of nations. As you can see if you read these articles that are linked the Alien and Sedition Acts, quite apart from being totally unrelated to the presidential eligibility question, were grossly unconstitutional and John Adams' support of them in particular became popularly perceived as overbearing and arrogant and vioilative of the Constitution and indeed led to free speech rights as we know them today as the Republicans rose to victory in reaction.

Jefferson and Madison it is to be noted did not join in the popular revulsion against the French which John Adams used to his political advantage. And Washington himself, who briefly came out of retirement duing this period to assume again the duties of Commander-in-Chief, it is known, was well familiar with Vattel. Indeed he never returned to the New York public library the copy of Vattel's Law of Narions that he took out of the library in New York when he was there. It was discovered years later among Washington's books and papers.

[sourcery]

No act of Parliament could make anyone a subject born, it could only make someone a subject made, as I conclusively proved in my essay: The Constitutional Meaning Of "Natural Born Citizen".

That said, there is some possible support in what the judges said in Calvin's Case for the idea that a person born abroad of parents who were a) British subjects, and b) in the service of the King (e.g, Ambassadors, soldiers on assignment, etc.) would be subjects born (subjects by nature) and not subjects made (subjects by law or political decree.) But you can't use any Act of Parliament to prove that.

It is important to note that the British term "natural born subject" is not any sort of analog for the American term "natural born citizen." Instead, the correct analogies are that "natural born subject" = "citizen," "subject made" = "naturalized citizen" and "subject born" = "natural born citizen." Again, as I concluslive demonstrated in the my essay (referenced above.)

But what matters is that the Founders consciously rejected not just British common law in general, but British notions of citizenship specifically. That also is fully documented in my essay.

Finally, consider this excerpt from my essay:

In addition to the debates at the Constitutional Convention, John Jay's letter to General Washington, and the text of the Constitution itself, there is also the testimony of Founder and historian David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815,) who was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

In 1789 (the year after the Constitution was ratified,) Dr. Ramsay published an essay entitled "A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen," a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.” In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

Based on Dr. Ramsay's definition of "natural born citizen," there can be no doubt why it was necessary to include the time-limited Constitutional exception that permitted those who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted to be President. Without that exception, those who would have qualified as natural born citizens, and so been Constitutionally eligible to be President, would have been no older than 12 years of age in 1788.

Given Dr. Ramsay's position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents.

[Texas Fossil]

I have never been a “subject”.

Neither of my parents were “subjects” to England or any other nation.

Blackstone was an English Jurist & Judge. Yes, he was an authority on English Law. Not US law, and they are not the same.

This is not as simple as you suggest. And I do not have the time today to find you the reference material to support what I said.

[xzins]

It was very clear. I was giving an opinion.

However, the FAM you’ve cited even says that the use of natural born in the 1790 law DOES SEEM to imply that a child born overseas to US parents is a natural born citizen for purposes of presidential qualifications.

Otherwise, it would not say “does not necessarily imply”. “Does not necessarily imply” means that the weight is on the side of “does imply.”

If it did NOT imply, then it would have said, “does not imply”.

So, the Blackstone law book DOES actually say that children born to overseas citizens ARE natural born citizens. This is in line with ancient law that says (postliminium) a person’s rights are not lost simply by being overseas.

You really have no leg to stand on rollingstone. It’s time to give it up.

By your interpretation “dead terrorist” Yemeni Anwar al Awlaki’s anchor baby children are more qualified for the presidency than is Ted Cruz. A strict interpretation of the blackstone interpretation applied in both directions would deny that opportunity to Awalaki’s anchor baby kids.

[xzins]

Anchor baby laws say they are US citizens at birth by virtue of being born here.

[xzins]

Read the other quotes in the article, and then go to the record yourself. The Founders used British law as the basis for much of our law. It makes sense. It’s the law they had and knew.

[gov_bean_ counter]

“Sufferage” The proper reference to deal with reversing the common law principle of coverture. Well done.

[AmericanVictory]

With all due respect, you are welcome to your "screams." Those interested in accuracy and truth will no doubt continue to pursue the actual historical facts. The fact is that we have a fraud in the Oval Office and it would be a mistake to think that because he has been allowed a free ride on his fraud because he is half black Ted Cruz will be allowed the same by state run media.

Perhaps you could favor us with some of the comments from those in the first congress to which you refer with the citations to the Congressional Record so that we can place them in proper context and analyze their relevance.

[xzins]

And this 1790 law says simply that being in a foreign country does not deprive one of legal standing as a citizen in his own country. That’s long been recognized, and long before Blackstone.

So, the principle you mention, “being born of citizens” is preserved. Since being overseas does not deprive one of his rights, then the passing by right and by blood to any children born overseas is preserved.

Therefore, the children born overseas to US citizens are themselves natural born citizens. Stated directly so in the 1790 law and fully in keeping with all other British and American law on the matter.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

“legalese text from past eras”

I’ve got one of those. They call it the Bible. It’s so old-fashioned. Some people even think you need to follow it, but us modren folks know better ‘cause we’ve got the internet.

[353FMG]

Will there be anything left of this country for Ted Cruz to lead when Obama is finished with it?

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I agree.. He is no more eligible than the current poser.

[Nero Germanicus]

However it demonstrates the Founders’ original thinking on the issue.

[xzins]

I have posted actual quotes and commentary with absolutely minimal comments of my own.

I did provide their comments from the congressional record. The link is below:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships8.html

[gov_bean_ counter]

The Founders used British law as the basis for much of our law.

...and failure to understand that fact should probable disqualify anyone from being taken seriously regarding the subject.

[rolling_stone]

you are very late to this party and apparently have an agenda and are trying to work “facts” to your agenda. I suggest you search FR on the subject or go back 3-5 years and read my posts or others on the subject

as a very good lawyer once told me a little knowledge of the law can be a dangerous thing...

US law does not follow Blackstone or
English law to the nth degree, and in fact Louisiana state follows Napoleonic law did you know that?
Maybe you should call up the State Department and tell them its a slam dunk!
regards

[Amendment10]

read the Blackstone quote.

Thank you for posting the stuff in the OP that you did.

But all bets were off when I read the part about the free white person in Congress's “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

"That any Alien being a free white person, ..."

At least they weren't expressively sexist. (sarc)

I don't expect patriots to have any more control over who the Progressive Movement nominates as Republican presidential candidate for 2016 elections than they did in previous elections. That's why I've said in related threads that I will reluctantly help to support Cruz if Obama guard dog Fx News selects him as Republican candidate.

I don't like Cruz because he doesn't reference speciific constitutional statutes any more than Sarah Palin does, corrections welcome. Both Palin and Cruz are popular with patriots because they speak constitutionally-sounding conservative platitudes which appeal to Constitution-ignorant patriots.

Again, I'll support whichever "conservative" candidate that Fx News nominates.

And if patriots would get their acts together and elect a Congress controlled by a conservative supermajority by 2016 then it wouldn't matter who got elected president. This is because a Congress controlled by a supermajority can override presidential vetoes under the Constitution's Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I.

[humblegunner]

You make a hell of a lot of stew from a single oyster, pal.