Replies

What the above means to the Ted Cruz debate is that Blackstone and British law were what was used by the Founders in putting together our first naturalization laws. Since Blackstone's comments on "natural born citizen" were written in 1765, we can say with near certainty that those colonists, who had been British subjects, would most likely have looked to the law they had available for their models:

Inferences will not prevail in the face of the determination to stop Cruz by the liberal elite and their house organs of the Leviathan state. Nor will the fact that the fraud in the Oval Office and "Chet" Arthur were not natural born citizens under the definitions used at the time in the area of citizenship. Both Marshall and Story opined from the bench in reported cases that the law of nations was what was looked to on the issue of citizenship. There is extrinsic evidence that supports the latter view from the time, such as the well known letter to Washington from Jay and no extrinsic evidence that the common law of England was behind the phrase. Likelihoods and surmises won't cut it. The word "citizen" was associated with the rise of republicanism as against monarchism and was not believed to be equivalent to "subject" but was considered quite different, since citizens were held to be sovereign in the ideology of republicanism. The early statute to which you refer was repealed and the repeal was accompanied by a recogition that it likely violated the Constitution and so needed to be repealed.

The hypocrisy involved will not stop the attacks on Cruz. The worshippers of the State don't give a hoot about hypocrisy. Nor did the ducking and giving of a free pass to the fraud in the Oval Office because he was half-black create "precedent." Avoidance does not establish a precedent. The closest precedent is Minor v. Happersett Waite carried weight as a jurist. The 14th Amendment cases such as WKA don't really apply and it clear from comments by the principal sponsor of the 14th Amendment in Congress that it was not intended to displace the law of nations derived definition. You fool yourself if you think that statist jurists will give Cruz the same free pass that they gave the great pretender in the Oval Office. The great pretender's foreign policy and warmaking are peeling away the sympathy for anything and everything he says and does that has ruled until now. The fear of Cruz' fearless constitutionalism ironically, will outweigh the backward-looking desire to protect the fraud at any cost as far as the members of the governing liberal elite are concerned. In their minds ideological status overrules the rule of law properly understood.

The very phrasing used screams Blackstone and British law. And the comments of representatives in the first congress clearly indicate British law and Blackstone.

It’s a slam dunk.

The early statute to which you refer was repealed and the repeal was accompanied by a recogition that it likely violated the Constitution and so needed to be repealed.

Link to source that documents accompanying recognition please.

HERE, HERE, let me associate myself with everything you said!!! Very well spoken(typed). I loved it. Excellent! BRAVO!