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:
Meant to ping you to 339.
Oh - one additional detail I meant to include.
The First Congress and First President included 40% of the Signers of the Constitution.
So it’s clear that they believed Congress had the ability to specify which persons, born abroad, were “natural born citizens” eligible to the Presidency.
That fact alone means that the birther definition of “natural born citizen” as someone born on US soil to two citizen parents is completely, irredeemably incorrect.
YOU are the one who exalts “authority” over reason. YOU can’t even acknowledge the internal conflicts in your position. YOU can’t even acknowledge that you didn’t understand the diagram you copied. And yes YOU refuse to address a point. Calling it BS is not addressing a point.
Citing state court again. Hahahaha
Cruz is a citizen by virtue of naturalization statute.
A statute addressing the very specific circumstance would not have been created if it were not needed.
Yet here you are claiming that a naturalized citizen is a natural born citizen.
Such foolishness. Such incredible foolishness.
Citing state court again. Hahahaha
Once again, you illustrate the stupidity of your position.
The state court case I cite - Lynch v. Clarke - had to do with NATIONAL citizenship. It was absolutely required that the judge determine what the NATIONAL rule of citizenship was, in order to adjudicate that state case.
And the judge in that same case was cited approvingly by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, who AGREED WITH HIS CONCLUSION.
Under those circumstances, YES, the State court decision is relevant.
YOU, on the other hand, try to cite a SEVERAL-COUNTIES judge, who had no responsibilities whatsoever to adjudicate the national law, and (unlike Sandford) no known reason to, as if he were somehow superior to authorities that were responsible for matters of NATIONAL law.
And the little SEVERAL-COUNTIES judge that you cite made a comment that was COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED by any reference whatsoever to national law, to prior legal precedent, or even to any prior national legal authority.
In other words, it was solely HIS OPINION.
Sandford, on the other hand, analyzed the law and precedent for about 25 fine-print pages - the equivalent of around FIFTY reasonable pages - going back literally HUNDREDS of years into the legal precedents before issuing a ruling.
This is a perfect example of the difference between a reasonable person and a batsh*t birther.
The reasonable person looks at all of the early authorities, sees they are in agreement, and decides they must have known what they were talking about.
The reasonable person looks for the best authority possible on which to base his or her opinion: James Madison? That's a pretty good authority. Alexander Hamilton? That's a pretty good authority. Judge Lewis Sandford, who analyzed the matter for 50 pages, went back hundreds of years into the precedents, was cited by and agreed with by the United States Supreme Court? That's a pretty good authority. William Rawle, who knew Franklin and Washington personally, met with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, was appointed US District Attorney for Pennsylvania, wrote one of the leading works on the Constitution? That's a pretty good authority. Bayard, US District Attorney whose work on the Constitution was warmly approved by Chief Justice John Marshall? Pretty darn good authority.
And then the REASONABLE person goes with what all the best authorities actually said.
The batsh*t birther rejects all of that. "Why, I've got a judge over several counties in Pennsylvania, who didn't actually analyze the matter, but he expressed a contrary opinion, and I like his opinion, so, by G*d, he's the 'best' authority."
It's bullsh*t. It's truckloads of absolute bullsh*t. And you, my friend, are the shoveler.
Such foolishness. Such incredible foolishness.
Well, obviously the Signers of the Constitution believed that Congress, under its power to "create a uniform rule of naturalization," had the power to specify which foreign-born persons were to be counted as "natural born citizens" and have the ability to be elected President, because 40% OF THEM, INCLUDING PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON WHO PRESIDED OVER THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, PROMPTLY PASSED A LAW DOING EXACTLY THAT.
So when you describe this belief as "foolishness," you are calling the Framers of the Constitution fools.
Once again, you illustrate that there's no length of bat****ery birthers won't go to.
If the Framers themselves disagree with you, then their ideas are "foolishness."
Even if, arguendo, Cruz is nbc, the law classes him as citizen. That’s the law whether you like it or not.
Fine. But if he runs for President and his eligibility is challenged in court, the court system is going to find him eligible.
Because not only do all current legal and Constitutional authorities of any stature who have spoken on the matter believe he's eligible...
There seems to be sufficient historical and legal evidence to indicate... they're right.
You are committing the fallacy of substitution. You are equating the usage of the term under English Common law, to the meaning of the term under the American law.
English Law is Monarchical based. The foundational premise is that the King Rules by Divine right, and it is in accordance with nature that all his subjects should bear perpetual allegiance to him. It's philosophical authorities are people like Bracton, Coke, Hale, Foster, and Blackstone.
American Law is based on a different concept featuring the inherent rights of man as outlined in the reasoning of Philosophers such as Locke, Puffendorf, Vattel, Grotius, Rousseau and so on. Indeed, without our founders becoming aware of their ideas, we likely never would have broke away.
Both groups regard their own version of "natural philosophy" as correct and eternal. (Well, the English HAVE given up Jus Soli and Perpetual allegiance, so I guess it wasn't so eternal after all. ) It's just that we in this country picked a different basis for our conception of what is "natural."
Rights of a King v Rights of man. Here is how it was regarded by one man (Alexander Mcleod)in 1814.
England grabs people by any pretext, and makes of them "Subjects." This is why we fought the war of 1812. They were still counting Americans as THEIR SUBJECTS.
My point was that a resort to natural law is generally a weak argument. There is no authority to resort to, no proof to present, no objective standard of weighing one person’s conception of natural law against another’s. It’s like a postulate in mathematics — it should be used as a basis only for the most fundamental principles that cannot rest on any other foundation. Much is derived from them, but they cannot be derived; but without them, everything falls apart.
“That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty and ...” property; “That to preserve these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” That kind of thing.
These principles are fundamental. They are eternal. They are also not very specific as to ways and means. The law of citizenship, on the other hand, is very much contingent, and very, very specific. For starters, for most of human history, even “citizen” was a novel term; people were natural born or foreign subjects. There is nothing fundamental to the notion of ordered liberty about who is or is not considered a citizen.
For a question like the natural born citizen clause of Article II, an appeal to natural law is fruitless. It can much too easily go either way. The first resort should be to the black letter law; then to the intent of the Framers to the extent it can be determined. The problem with that latter step is that the Framers often did not share a consensus view. The vague language in the Constitution is intentionally so; the Framers could not agree amongst themselves, and left the details to the small-r republican and, to varying degrees, small-d democratic institutions they were building.
You are committing the fallacy of substitution. You are equating the usage of the term under English Common law, to the meaning of the term under the American law.
And you are committing the fallacy of begging the question. If "Natural Law" means one thing under English Common Law and another under American law, what is its value? How can you appeal to natural law as if it pre-exists and underlies the existing law, how can you treat it as God's law, when it is contingent on the human laws of a given place and time?
Have you read the INA, yet?
Tu quoque, right off the bat! And you are mistaken, i'm not begging the question, i'm pointing out that there are two different systems. To Americans, the English System of "natural" law is valueless, our very existence is a rejection of it. Regarding the English, our system has slowly encroached theirs, making ours the superior of the two.
So to answer your question, the American philosophy of natural law has great value to Americans. Indeed, it was the key to our freedom and independence. What do you suppose that was worth?
How can you appeal to natural law as if it pre-exists and underlies the existing law, how can you treat it as God's law, when it is contingent on the human laws of a given place and time?
Because it isn't. "Natural Law" as defined by a Monarch and his supporters is not the most objective source. It necessarily favors the status quo for those at the top of the social structure. It is subjective.
What the founders learned was objective natural law, something which remains true regardless of ones position in the social structure. They realized that individuals were basically equal and had inherent rights, not derived from a King. Among them the right of Expatriation, the Right to pursue happiness, Freedom from persecution for their beliefs, elimination of class barriers, and so on.
When these ideas were first realized, and when we realized that we should insist on them, every other government but one (Switzerland) was a Monarchy. Since then, Monarchy after Monarchy has fallen, to be replaced by systems more closely resembling ours. Today, Monarchy is an endangered form of government, and that is assuming if you are going to argue that it still exists at all.
As Aristotle's understanding gave way to Newton's, I would say that evolutionary forces had demonstrated our comprehension of "natural law" to be superior to that of the Old English version.
A great many times. Why?
Here is a small clue: Immigration and NATURALIZATION Act.
Here is where they received their appointments.
You aren't arguing with Roberts, you are arguing with the ENTIRE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA!
You're nothing more than a BS-slinging birther moron. None of the above EVER expressed or approved Roberts' opinion, and you know it. The opinion was his, and his alone.
And you are a deluded kook to believe that. Roberts put their names in the book, and the tittle attributes the work to them, and you don't think they had anything to say about it?
William Tilghman lived until 1827. So for ten years, Tilghman's name was on that book by Samuel Roberts, and you think he didn't agree with what was in that book? The book was widely used in Pennsylvania law offices and courts, so don't think for a minute that Judge Tilghman didn't know about it. He also knew Rawle quite well.
Rawle's Wife's maiden name was Tillghman.
Apart from that, I found a case which they tried featuring Rawle as attorney for the plaintiff. (1797-1802) It's a case where he did his little song and dance about English common law and the court found for the defendant. UNANIMOUSLY.
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.