Posted on 05/21/2013 9:52:10 AM PDT by Ray76
Ted Cruz was born "Rafael Edward Cruz" December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
His mother is US citizen Eleanor Darragh.
His father is Cuban citizen Rafael B. Cruz. (naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2005)
Eleanor Darragh and Rafael B. Cruz were residents of Canada for at least four years from 1970, possibly earlier, until 1974. They conducted business there as Rafael B. Cruz and Associates, Ltd.
Where they "permanent residents"?
Is Ted Cruz a "natural born citizen" of Canada?
Revised Statutes of Canada 1970:
Yes
You do realize it is circular?
The Argument put forth is that American law is based on English Common law. The laws of Canada are most certainly based on English Common Law. If the source of both nations is English Common Law, then you have a ridiculous situation where two nations, using the same source of authority, lay claim to the same man.
“Common Law” is a theory in jurisprudence where greater weight is given to precedence under the concept that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. It is one of the three forms of law; common law, statutory law and administrative law.
It is "unwritten law" that is established by long usage and habit rather than by legislative statute. The Jus Soli argument for the United States is based on the notion that we adopted English Common law as regards our citizens.
The British body of precedents (rulings) is different that the US body of precedence. A US court is expected to follow US common law and a British court is expected to follow British common law.
You appear to be somewhat new to this discussion. The Dominant argument on the Jeff Winston side of the issue is that US citizen Law = English Subject Law, except for the "perpetual allegiance" part. Why they keep trying to cut that part off, I do not know. Perhaps because it really bollocks' their argument?
Really, have you ever studied law?
For many years. Have you ever studied Engineering? It is a jarring transition to go from pseudo logic and reliance on previous "opinions" to accurate measurement and calculation. Of the two systems, one can continuously produce ridiculous and catastrophic results, and still be regarded as operating within acceptable margins by it's adherents.
If Buildings were Built in the manner that laws are adjudicated, the first woodpecker which came along would destroy civilization.
Note I didn't say *I* would be doing the shooting, but I don't see why I should feel strongly about opposing it. :)
And anyone who actually looks at the facts can see that virtually all of the evidence is on one side, and it isn't your side.
Jeff, you don't get to make up "facts."
All significant early authorities - ALL of them - say you're full of it.
Some of Jeff's Significant early authorities:
Jeff thinks they talk when he puts words in their mouths.
Virtually every argument you make is fallacious BS.Hopefully one of these days I'll get around to publishing them all in one place.
Yes, the world desperately needs a massive textual wall of garbage. It's not like Daily Kos has that covered or anything.
Even if I don't, I don't think it matters very much. If Cruz runs, you're not going to be able to hold back his candidacy.
Don't know if I can or not. I might not even want to. If they won't play by the rules, I don't feel obliged to do so either.
Brilliant! Spot on, too.
If you won't debate your position, i'm fine with that. It's hard enough getting people to stop listening to "authorities" and start thinking for themselves.
Thanks. I aim to entertain while I educate. :)
In some circumstances, that's true. In others, it isn't.
Fact: Article II specifies “citizen” at the time of adoption of the constitution, and “natural born citizen” thereafter.
That's correct.
Fact: “Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”.
That's correct.
Fact: If a “citizen at birth” by naturalization statute is (as you contend) a “natural born citizen” what would be the point of Article II’s distinction of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”?
"Citizen" is dead. It died when the very last of those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution died, which would've been around 100 years later, or around 1888.
Can we agree on that?
It now requires that a person be a natural born citizen, and has for your entire lifetime and mine.
Fact: Contending that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” do not have distinct meanings creates a pointless redundancy in the Constitution, it is an impermissible construction.
Nobody contends that.
In 2013, a person must be a natural born citizen to be legally elected President. Do we agree on that?
Historically and legally, there are two ways in which a person can be a natural born citizen: Jus soli and jus sanguinis.
Generally speaking, the jus soli route includes persons born on US soil of parents who are not foreign ambassadors, foreign royalty, or members of invading armies.
It specifically includes the children of non-citizen residents who are here legally.
It arguably MIGHT not include the children of non-citizens who are only here temporarily, NOT as residents.
And I think there's a good case that it should not include the children of illegal aliens.
That's jus soli.
Jus sanguinis includes the children born, wherever they may be born, of at least one US citizen parent who meets whatever other qualifications Congress sets.
The Founders believed, and therefore I believe, that Congress has the power to say who among those born abroad is and is not a natural born American citizen.
I do not believe they have any such broad discretion when it comes to those born in the United States, although I think they could forbid children of illegal aliens, and possibly birth tourism as well.
Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen, and Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.
Is all of that clear?
Stipulated: “The Founders believed, and therefore I believe, that Congress has the power to say who among those born abroad is and is not a natural born American citizen.”
Therefore Cruz, born abroad, is by law a citizen. The law does not say “natural born citizen” - even though you believe the terms are synonymous they are not as has been shown.
Fact: “Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”.The fact that persons covered by Art. II grandfather clause are dead is immaterial to the definition of words.That's correct.
Fact: If a “citizen at birth” by naturalization statute is (as you contend) a “natural born citizen” what would be the point of Article II’s distinction of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”?
"Citizen" is dead. It died when the very last of those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution died, which would've been around 100 years later, or around 1888.
Can we agree on that?
It now requires that a person be a natural born citizen, and has for your entire lifetime and mine.
Furthermore the distinction was in force for living persons for decades:
“It specifically includes the children of non-citizen residents who are here legally.”
The children of aliens naturalize upon the naturalization of the parents. Your scenario does not exist. Even Gray in Ark declared your scenario’s class “citizen”
“Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”.
This is true today as it was at the adoption.
“But they can’t all say they are correct. The one which is, must necessarily renders the rest incorrect.”
That’s why it takes at least five like minds to render an opinion that stands.
The only point in the distinction is in the clause that you leave out: "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." The reason for that exception is that, by the broadest definition, the oldest natural born citizen of the US was eleven years old in 1787.
If a “citizen at birth” by naturalization statute is (as you contend) a “natural born citizen” at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution what would be the point of Article II’s distinction of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”?
Or are you contending that a citizen necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen” EXCEPT at the time of adoption?
Neither Canada's nor the US's citizenship determinations take their authority from English common law. They are based on statutory law or, in cases covered by the 14th Amendment (and possibly some Canadian cases; I don't know their constitution), constitutional law.
The Jus Soli argument for the United States is based on the notion that we adopted English Common law as regards our citizens.
The jus soli argument for the United States is based on the black-letter law of the Fourteenth Amendment. It's becoming increasingly clear that you lack the first clue about how common law works; it does not supersede statutory law.
Two classes of citizens are eligible to be president:
• Natural Born Citizens over the age of 35
• Citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution who are over the age of 35
The point of the second class is that the first class was a null set in 1787. There is no broader implication of the kind you're trying ineptly to draw.
The term "citizen" necessarily encompasses "naturalized citizen" and "natural born citizen" first because that's how language works, and second because it's in the plain language of the 14th Amendment. "Citizen" also applied to both categories at the time of adoption, which is why the Framers carved out a specific one-time exception to the Natural Born Citizen rule.
Okay. Here's where we're tripping up.
You have obviously decided to take the position that if the law doesn't EXPLICITLY say, "Persons born overseas to US citizen parents are to be considered NATURAL BORN citizens," then it can't mean that they are natural born citizens.
In other words, I am assuming that you accept that the Framers of the Constitution intended that Congress had the ability to say who, born abroad, was and was not a natural born citizen.
You simply maintain that unless they include the words "natural born" in the law, and spell it out specifically, such persons aren't to be considered natural born citizens.
Am I correct here?
Assuming that I am: I can understand such a viewpoint.
The problem is that whatever the 3rd Congress intended in dropping the words "natural born" from the 1795 Naturalization Act, succeeding Congresses have passed succeeding acts. The 1795 Act went out of force a couple hundred years ago.
So in order to understand what the law currently means, we would need to consider the intent of the Congress or Congresses that passed the laws now in force.
The pretty much universal understanding since then, of our courts, our legislatures, and the general public, has been that if someone is born a citizen, that person is a natural born citizen.
In other words, whatever the 1795 Congress intended, succeeding Congresses intended for US citizens born to citizen parents abroad to be equal to those born US citizens here.
This understanding was strong enough, and pervasive enough, for James Bayard to write in 1834 that being a natural born citizen only required citizenship by birth, and that those born overseas to US citizen parents were eligible to be President - and for Chief Justice Marshall to agree.
So why didn't succeeding Congresses include the magic words "natural born?" They simply didn't think it was necessary. Either that, or they simply didn't consider whether any of these citizens might want to run for President and "need" those words.
Because everyone pretty much understood that if you were born a citizen, then you were a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President.
That's my understanding.
And you may disagree. If so, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But based on the evidence from Bayard and Marshall, and so many other things, I'm confident that understanding is the correct one.
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.