Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen... of Canada?

Posted on 05/21/2013 9:52:10 AM PDT by Ray76

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-369 last
To: ReignOfError
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.

And this is a valid point. One of the theories I keep in the back of my mind is the notion that there might not have been a consensus on the meaning of the term "natural born citizen." It is possible that some thought it was a term referring to the analogous "natural born subject" and therefore English Common law definition would apply, and that others applied the then dominant philosophy of Vattel, along with his definition.

I have been researching this issue quite a lot, and I have been looking for insight regarding it. Commentary from Founders and Delegates is good evidence, and commentary from subsequent law authorities not so much.

I did discover that an Abolition movement was sweeping the nation right after the Constitutional Convention, (Go figure. All that talk of Freedom made people feel bad about being hypocrites.) and that proponents of it disdained Vattel because his definition lent no aid to their cause. They specifically favored the English Common law definition because it offered the best argument for granting freedom to slaves; Being born here made one a "citizen." Vattel's Parent requirement was no help at all.

I strongly suspect that William Rawle, (THE LEADER of the abolition movement in Pennsylvania) intentionally ignored Vattel, and specifically promoted the English Common law theory just because it supported his cause, and not because it was true.


361 posted on 05/29/2013 9:06:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
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?

Bull****.

Total, absolute bull****, like everything you write.

Many years later a second edition of Roberts' work was compiled, by someone else, which included the Supreme Court's original report to the legislature. Roberts' original didn't have that, and unless I've missed something here, it didn't...

"...listed them as members of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, who had prepared a report for the legislature."

So there's not even a HINT that the Supreme Court approved Roberts' work.

In fact, that Roberts was not in communication with the Supreme Court on any of these details is evident from his own words in the Preface:

"The report which they [the judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court] have submitted, is, doubtless, entitled to high respect and consideration, as containing the opinions of men who rank in the highest grade of the profession, and in the public confidence, but it ought to be carefully distinguished from a JUDICIAL DECISION; of the character of which it does not partake.

The distinguished characters who have made the report, it is confidently presumed, would not wish that it should be so considered; but on the contrary...

If Roberts was even in communication with any of the members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, then why would he PRESUME their wishes?

Once again, this claim, like everything you write, is complete bull****. In fact, it seems like your only purpose at FreeRepublic is to mislead people regarding our history, our Constitution and our laws. Why don't you go preach your stupid cr*p to the inmates at the local asylum?

And as far as "deluded kooks" go, YOU'RE the one whose legal theory is so idiotic that you can't find ONE Founder or Framer, or ONE single court in the entire United States, or even ONE of our 535 Members of Congress, or even ONE major contemporary legal authority, or even ONE conservative Constitutional foundation, who agrees with you.

Yeah, yeah, I know. The fact that everybody who's anybody says you're totally full of crap means that you're actually a genius.

Go preach it to the pigeons, Einstein.

362 posted on 05/29/2013 9:37:18 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

It’s really funny to watch you go off on a rant. Other than that, your points aren’t worth addressing.


363 posted on 05/29/2013 10:22:56 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I don’t know why your presence here is tolerated. Your entire purpose seems to be to mislead people regarding our Constitution and laws. You simply don’t belong on a site where people value our history and our Constitution.


364 posted on 05/29/2013 10:43:49 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I don’t know why your presence here is tolerated. Your entire purpose seems to be to mislead people regarding our Constitution and laws. You simply don’t belong on a site where people value our history and our Constitution.

I don't know why YOUR presence is tolerated. Everything you promote is intended to legitimize the most unworthy bastard in History, and you work very hard on his behalf.

Your arguments are ridiculous, your evidence is pathetic, and you have absolutely no comprehension that our entire history is a refutation of your argument.

Slaves did not become citizens from being born here. We had to pass the 14th amendment to naturalize them en masse, yet you still persist in claiming that these millions of exceptions don't disprove your rule.

You likewise ignore the millions of exceptions constituting the Indians born here, but who were not citizens until 1924. Again, a special act was required to naturalize them.

You further ignore the 100,000 or so children born here to British Loyalists who continued to be British Subjects after the Revolution.

You are simply a man that cannot face reality, and would prefer to listen to the soothing words of pretend authorities and know nothings who prattle on in the world of legal gobbledegook, than to actually look at the ugly reality of history.

That your stupid theory is the cause of MUCH DAMAGE to the nation is beyond your ken, or probably even your care. Your stupid theory is wrecking the country by granting privileges to people who never earned or deserved them.

Again, making SUBJECTS of everyone you can makes perfect sense IF YOU ARE A KING! It is utter IDIOCY if you are a wealthy Republic.

Once again, your theory requires us to believe brilliant men were IDIOTS! I prefer to believe that you and your ilk are.

365 posted on 05/29/2013 11:54:23 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Just because you wish the Constitution and our laws to say a particular thing, doesn’t make it true.

Virtually every authority in history says you’re full of BS, and still you go on spewing your bull****.

You don’t belong here.


366 posted on 05/29/2013 2:58:08 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You don’t decide what you want the Constitution to mean, and then say that’s what it means.

That’s the LIBERAL approach.

You go back in history, and you look at what the terms actually MEANT.


367 posted on 05/29/2013 2:59:09 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Just because you wish the Constitution and our laws to say a particular thing, doesn’t make it true.

This is exactly correct, and therefore you need to stop pretending the constitution is based on English Common law. It isn't.

Virtually every authority in history says you’re full of BS, and still you go on spewing your bull****.

You are a liar, that keeps repeating the same lie over and over again. I've covered your "authorities" before. Most of them either don't agree with you, or are in no position to be an actual authority.

How many delegates have you got? I don't give a sh*t what ignorant lawyers say about it, I want to hear the words from Law-MAKERS. How many of them do you have? Is it ZERO, or D**N close to zero?

You don’t belong here.

You certainly belong at "Dr. Conspiracy's" Website. You'd fit right in with all the other Democrat Obama supporters who believe he is a "natural" citizen.

368 posted on 05/30/2013 10:02:43 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
You don’t decide what you want the Constitution to mean, and then say that’s what it means.

So stop doing it!

That’s the LIBERAL approach.

Exactly, and you are supporting Obama's legitimacy, just like a Liberal would. No wonder people think you're a troll instead of a seriously misguided Conservative Kook.

You go back in history, and you look at what the terms actually MEANT.

Exactly. You notice the 100,000 children of British Loyalists born after 1776 did not become American citizens, You notice that Slaves didn't become American citizens until we implemented the jus soli naturalization act of 1868, you also notice that Indians didn't become citizens until 1924, and that throughout our entire history, we didn't apply the English Common Law Standard.

This is called "REALITY", and you need to get in touch with it.

369 posted on 05/30/2013 10:09:23 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-369 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson