Posted on 03/06/2013 1:26:12 PM PST by Perdogg
Sen Ted Cruz's mother was a US Citizen at the time of his birth, therefore he is nBC! He just said on Hannity he was a US Citizen at time of birth.
The Supreme Court created a “fourth” type of citizenship in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, when they made a distinction between natural-born citizens and 14th amendment “citizenship by birth.” The court said the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. The court cited NBCs as a separate class of citizens than those persons born on the soil without regard to the citizenship of the parents. The court affirmed that NBCs do NOT need the 14th amendment to become citizens AND they confirmed that citizenship by birth via the 14th amendment only applied to the children of resident aliens. It’s all there. Read it.
Other than several Supreme Court decisions that specifically use Vattel's definiton and go so far as to characterize it as the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar ..."
The phrase you use referred not to Vattel, but to the common law. And whenever the Court says “the common law,” that includes the English common law which was our heritage.
It’s the same common law that the Wong Court referred to repeatedly, over dozens of pages.
The remedy for a bad President is to scratch and claw at the bad President, not to scratch and claw at our Constitution.
I agree... Cruz would be at the top of my list as well!
I LOVE that video of the good Senator Cruz with those idiotic clapping seals!
Justices Scalia and Thomas would disagree with you on Wong. They cited from US v Wong Kim Ark in their ruling in Miller v Albright 523 US 420 (1998): “The Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only, birth and naturalization. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1060.ZC1.html
There is no member of the current court who believes that there is a distinction between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.
McCain was not born in the USA or naturalized. How does the 14 th apply to McCain?
I’ve gone to the internet and found many postings giving references to Ben Franklin’s involvement with Vattel’s writings and especially his noting of such to the Congress.One such writing is to Charles Dumas dated from Philadelphia 9 December, 1775. There are other such references available on the internet. Some where in my files is a reference to Franklin and Jay being connected on this matter.
I would be interested in seeing your references to Ben Franklin and Vattel. I think I've seen some stuff in the past, but it was all very general.
There's not the slightest doubt in my mind that some of the Founding Fathers looked favorably on at least some of Vattel's writings and ideas. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Vattel was influential in the area of international law.
There is also not the slightest doubt in my mind that when it came to citizenship, they didn't give him a second thought. Just as they didn't give him a second thought when he said that the state should control religion, that the state should control speech (he approved the appointment of government censors, but said that "wise" people should be selected for the job), and that the right to keep and bear arms should be restricted to the elites:
"Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in times of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords."
Those who are big fans of Vattel here, let me ask you: Why aren't you supporting Obama's gun control measures and trying to take away guns from all the commoners and the riff-raff? That seems to be what Vattel would have been out in front supporting at this point in time.
The bottom line is: Natural born citizen clearly came from natural born subject. It always included everyone born in the country, whether their parents were citizens or not. And the exceptions to that (children of foreign diplomats and such) were very, very rare.
I understand that some have been deceived by the two-citizen parents birthers. But it is time that we stop indulging people who want to twist the Constitution.
Excellent post!
I gave you one reference as to Franklin acknowledging Vattel. Go there and I think you can find many more references. My take as to the Founders considering/incorporating Vattel is they took what They deemed good for the new Nation. Their Constitution, and ours, explicitly refers to ‘the law of nations’ in Sec. 8 of Article I. I consider this validating that the Founders were very much aware/atuned to Vattel’s works on government. I believe that Franklin being much connected to France and a power in the framing of the Constitution did much to have the Founders knowledgeable about Vattel’s views of government.
Such a conclusions would simply be inaccurate.
The "law of nations" was a general category of law, and it was by no means the sole province of Vattel. He was simply one of quite a few different writers on the subject.
It's like saying that if Vattel wrote a book titled, "Right to Bear Arms," and the Constitution refers to our right to keep and bear arms, then that means the Founding Fathers were fans of Vattel's book and his philosophy, and therefore there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.
The example is fictional, of course (Vattel wrote no such book) but it illustrates what I'm saying. The "law of nations" was a GENERAL topic, a general area of law. And there is NOTHING to suggest that when the Framers referred to the "law of nations" in our Constitution, that they were referring to Vattel or his book.
Actually, if you want to go there...
What they referred to, quite specifically, was "OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS."
There IS a book that uses VIRTUALLY THAT IDENTICAL PHRASE as the title of one of its chapters.
The chapter title is: "OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS."
The book was EXTREMELY well known in the Founders' and Framers' day. The book that I refer to was far better known, far more used, and far more quoted, by the Founders and Framers, than Vattel's book EVER was.
That being the case, would you agree with me that this book, with its chapter entitled, "OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS," is most likely where they got the phrase from?
She is 4 years older than Ted's father.
Correct--that is what I meant. I just mistyped.
In that era, I thought it was unusual for an attractive young woman to be married to a guy who was four years younger than she was although that appears to have been the case.
I continue to be surprised that given the heated Texas US Senate contest, that no one has a detailed paper on exactly how this works.
Looks to me as though under the statute there is room for an issue as to whether or not Kruz was really a citizen at all which would make him ineligible to serve as a U S Senator.
One link directed me to Jefferson's library, and to George Washington having borrowed a copy of Vattel's LON and never having returned it, all of which I was familiar with.
Like I said: It's clear that the Founding Fathers read Vattel. It's clear that they paid attention to him in areas of international law. But there's nothing to suggest they paid much, or even ANY, attention to him on matters of how to define citizenship. And again, even on the law of nations, he was only ONE writer of quite a few.
If you look at Jefferson's library, it has Vattel's book. It also has "law of nature and nations" books by Beller, Cumberland, Burlamaqui, Perreau, Ward, Grotius, Puffendorf, Wolff, Martens, Rayneval, Felice, Barbeyrac, Lee, Selden, Bynkershoek, and others.
Yes, Vattel was an important writer on the law of nations. But he was far from the only one.
Good find. There are other parts of Vattel that I don't think would get much approval around here, either: "The first impressions made on the mind are of the utmost importance for the remainder of life. In the tender years of infancy and youth, the human mind and heart easily receive the seeds of good or evil. Hence the education of youth is one of the most important affairs that deserve the attention of the government." Universal pre-K, anyone?
"The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority." Aaand there goes the First, following the Second out the window.
Sort of an absurdity, isn't it? FReepers pushing the writings of a big-government philosopher who spoke out in favor of government-restricted speech, government control of religion, and no Second Amendment?
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple.
Even though Senator McCain’s parents were living in the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth, they maintained a permanent residence in the United States.
It didn't specify anything about "English" common law. The definition of NBC is a verbatim match of Law of Nations, which is ALSO recognized as common law.
It’s the same common law that the Wong Court referred to repeatedly, over dozens of pages.
No, actually it's not. The Wong court cited English common law over dozens of pages after affirming the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship and AFTER it affirmed the Law of Nations definition from Minor.
The remedy for a bad President is to scratch and claw at the bad President, not to scratch and claw at our Constitution.
Upholding the Constitution has nothing to do with scratching and clawing at it.
This says there are two "SOURCES" of citizenship, but it does NOT say that there is only one class of citizenship per each source. Under naturalization law, we know there are several classes. Under birth citizenship, the Supreme Court has pointed out at least TWO different classes.
There is no member of the current court who believes that there is a distinction between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.
This is speculation that simply isn't supported by your citation. Let's see which one of these justices is willing to overrule the unanimous decision in Minor. The Wong Kim Ark court was NOT willing to do this. And the Luria court cited Minor and NOT Ark on establishing a precedent on presidential eligibility.
I didn't say it did apply to McCain. Why dod you ask??
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.