Cruz likely eligible to be President

Fair enough. I'd really like to apologize for being the source of it. I'm seriously not trying to be.

And now I'm convinced you're discussing in good faith and not just jerking me around. I'll try and keep a lid on any frustration. I have an intimidating deadline and have been working hard all week, so I'm more on edge than usual.

What do you mean by 'internal politics'. As in the federal governments relations to the states, a states internal relation with itself?

I was thinking of using the word "intranational," but I wasn't sure that'd be clear. I just mean the political questions that are entirely a nation's own business, that don't have to do with its relations with other nations. Like who's a citizen and who gets to be president.

What you're asking me for is certain knowledge, and, to me, if I can't stand up in front of a judge and swear to it, it's not certain knowledge. I wasn't THERE so I can't answer it either way!
Oh, Dude, I am so, SO sorry!

No, that's cool. I have a lot of "as I understand it" and "as far as I know" in my posts for the same reason. I'll read your posts in that framework, then.

I really though you pulled it from Ark and it came from Blackstone.

I'm sorry, but by all rights the mistake could have been discovered at the outset had you put a source up for what you were contending to be true.
You didn't even know the year, all you gave was a name.

I can see where the confusion came from, though actually I did give a source, sorta. This started with my saying that "natural-born subject" didn't require inheritance from parents (392), and you asked what English law that was based on (396), and I said there was a lot of discussion of it in Wong Kim Ark (405) and quoted one reference, prefaced with "The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700). c. 6." Whew.

you're asking me to prove a negative after I just proved a positive...while you still haven't proven anything yet.

And I think you're asking me to prove a negative: you posted a quote and said it referred to the book "Law of Nations" rather than just the generic term "law of nations," and asked me to prove it didn't.

Please do show me anything I missed. I try to catch everything, but if you made a point and I ignored it, please do point it out to me.

In (480), in response to what I thought was a request to prove that Wilson wasn't talking about the book, I posted three other sentences from the same speech (or whatever it was) that I thought clearly could not possibly refer to the book. I suppose it's possible that he went back and forth between meaning the book and meaning the generic term without ever indicating which one, but that seems unlikely.

I've sincerely enjoyed it and am most certainly not trying to bring frustration into your life. Life does enough of that on its own.

I knew we'd agree on something sooner or later.

The likelihood is that the great majority of the founding fathers gave the term "natural born citizen" very little thought at all.

I agree.

When the Constitution was crafted, there were big issues at stake. What should be the status of slavery? How can small states be protected from political abuse by larger, wealthier states? It was compromises on these huge issues that made the Constitution possible. They spent less time than the good folks at Free Republic thinking about the precise meaning of terms like "natural born citizen" or "Letters of Marque and Reprisal."

Absolutely.

Moreover, if we are to trust Justice Scalia, the important question is not how the intellectual elite of that day defined these terms; instead, the important question is what those terms meant to ordinary citizens:

"The Second Amendment provides: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that '[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation." District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Absolutely insightful. Back in those early days, how many ordinary citizens paid any attention to Vattel's theories? How many read "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law" in English? How many read it in its original language? How many had ever heard of Vattel? How many thought it would be practical to try to determine with certainty the identity and citizenship of biological fathers more than 35 years after a birth?

None; none; zero; very few; and practically nobody.

The entire Vattel birther pathology is grounded in elitism. Ordinary citizens now and ordinary citizens at the time of our founding know/knew nothing about Vattel or 18th century Swiss "natural law" philosophies. But, these Vattel fans manifest nothing but contempt for ordinary citizens. They view them as ignorant (meaning they don't read translations of Vattel) and certainly not to be trusted to judge for themselves the qualifications of presidential candidates because there is no assurance that they will first read and fully understand translations of Vattel to discover the one and only true meaning of "natural born citizen."

So, to hell with ordinary citizens! What we'll look for instead is a few elitist lawyers/politicians at the time of our founding who may have had a copy of Vattel's work in their libraries. That's the best we can do.

And, yet, after four long years, they continue to wonder: Why won't the Supreme Court attempt to intervene to tell the world that Obama really isn't the president? He's NOT the president. It just can't be!!!

So well said, it bore repeating.

I have an intimidating deadline and have been working hard all week, so I'm more on edge than usual.

Poor thing! It's perfectly understandable. Don't rush anything on my account. These words will pretty much stay where we put them unless the 'lectricity goes out.

-----

I just mean the political questions that are entirely a nation's own business, that don't have to do with its relations with other nations.

But the internal operation of the country IS the relations between the States. At least it was supposed to be.

We may see what Vattel was talking about was what our concept of 'nations' is....but in a functional sense, that's exactly what the States are. They are independent political bodies that joined together, and agreed on a few powers to delegate to an entity they created to protect their collective interests.

Tucker ties the law of nations TO the 10th Amendment and the 10th is strictly an internal operation. Ergo, the words of Tucker illustrate that Vattels law of nations does have an internal Constitutional operation, because the 10th Amendment has no affect on the federal government's relations with other nations.

That's my opinion of it anyway.

-----

That's the beauty of the Law of Nature and Nations. Whether you are an individual person, a State OR a nation, the Freedom of Association rule still applies.

------

"The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700). c. 6." Whew.

LOL! 'Whew!' is right!

Okay, do you see any point in going back to all this? I mean, Blackstone was the standard in English law, and Tucker's annotated version was the standard in early America.

You can go to any lawyer's office in the country and find Tucker's work in the leather-bound tomes behind their desk, so can we agree these can be used as a standard in the discussion?

------

And I think you're asking me to prove a negative:

You're right I did. I realized it later and had a "Doh!" moment.

----

you posted a quote and said it referred to the book "Law of Nations" rather than just the generic term "law of nations," and asked me to prove it didn't.

All I can do is look at the evidence - 1] the Founders had Vattel in hand and were using it while they were writing the Constitution. 2]Kent said he was the 'most quoted' jurist during that time. 3] Tucker said the 10th was an 'express recognition' of Vattel.

So there are 3 pieces of evidence illustrating Vattel's work was both well known and in circulation at that time. And you basically, despite all 3 pieces of evidence, asked me to prove it was Vattel and not a generic law of nations Wilson was talking about.

Does that mean you think I should have to directly trace back to Vattel every usage of the generic term 'law of nations' we come across?

I'm not trying to be contrary, and I'm not even saying Vattel was used exclusively, but the fact is that we have to establish some kind of baseline somewhere if we want to sift fact from fiction. IMHO, with the evidence I know of, Vattel's the best chance we have.

-----

Okay, it's in 492 in response to 480, and it wasn't an intentional ignore, it was an I-really-didn't-see-it 'ignore'. It must've popped up after I was posting and I never scrolled back far enough to realize it was there.

Yes, you are correct in that there are several proper names in there that might indicate Vattel wasn't used exclusively for that particular lecture, and 2 of those, Grotius and Pufendorff, were also authors of the works called the Law of Nations.

But with the 3 pieces of evidence already present, it conversely doesn't prove the generic term law of nations never referenced Vattel at all.

[To clarify - the above isn't a hedge, it's just what I do. I have this habit of taking a piece of evidence, looking at it one way, and then looking at it again in reverse, so you'll see the word 'conversely' a lot]

------------

I knew we'd agree on something sooner or later.

I'm very glad that we did.

-----

This is pure assumption on my part, but I think you may at a very frustrating point in you quest, anyway. This, of course, doesn't help matters any, I just wanted to let you know something that it took me a long time to discover. Maybe it will help.

If you want to take an honest, unjaundiced view of the past, you have to forget everything you think you already know, and start, like the Founders did......from the beginning. You will never get a clear view of that time trying to look through the warped lens of the present.

Sincerest and most humble apologies again for any frustration, and if you make a point and think I ignore it, please do bring it to my attention.

Meanwhile, don't work too hard, stay safe, and

Big Hug

But the internal operation of the country IS the relations between the States. At least it was supposed to be....Tucker ties the law of nations TO the 10th Amendment and the 10th is strictly an internal operation. Ergo, the words of Tucker illustrate that Vattels law of nations does have an internal Constitutional operation, because the 10th Amendment has no affect on the federal government's relations with other nations.

I don't think we're going to get any further with this. What I understood you to be saying (and we've established that I don't always understand so good) was that since Tucker tied the LoN to the 10th, that meant the 10th was based on the LoN, which proved that the Founders relied on the LoN for guidance on internal matters. While I was saying that it seemed more likely to me that Tucker, in commenting on the 10th, said "in fact, it's just like the way Vattel describes relations between states in a federal republic," without implying (much less proving) any causation. It's a fine distinction, and until Tucker shows up here, probably not one we'll be able to resolve.

Okay, do you see any point in going back to all this?

Not really, though my question to you still stands: I said "natural-born subjects" could have alien parents, you asked for a reference, I gave that law as a reference, you said there were two types of natural-born subjects, I asked whether there was ever any functional difference between the two, and you pointed to that law. If we're not going back to that, do you have any other examples of where the distinction between a "proclaimed" NBS and a "natural" NBS made a functional difference?

So there are 3 pieces of evidence illustrating Vattel's work was both well known and in circulation at that time.

I've never denied that.

And you basically, despite all 3 pieces of evidence, asked me to prove it was Vattel and not a generic law of nations Wilson was talking about.
Does that mean you think I should have to directly trace back to Vattel every usage of the generic term 'law of nations' we come across?

Of course not, because I don't think most of them do trace back to Vattel. Again, the way I see it is that you quoted Wilson in support of the idea that our nation used Vattel as a "rule book." I think the burden of proof is on you to show that his use of the term "law of nations" referred specifically to Vattel and not to the generic term, and I don't think just showing that Vattel was popular and was quoted a lot does that.

My son's psychology textbook is called "Learning Psychology." I assume it's a popular Psych 1 textbook. But I think it would be foolish of me to parse a sentence like "I really like learning psychology" as an endorsement of the book.

I've really tried to do that. When I first heard the eligibility objections, my response was "Whaaaa...?" But rather than just take someone's word for it, I've read the arguments from both birthers and anti-birthers, I've read the relevant chunks of Minor and Ark and Ankeny, I've read all the historical excerpts you and Jeff have provided, and I've tried to figure out for myself what they meant. But I'm also wary of starting from "first principles" (or "common sense" or "natural law") because in my experience, what most people mean by those terms is "what I think." I'm interested in what the Founders thought as revealed by their words and actions, not in trying to figure out how they must have agreed with me.

Thanks for the kind words. And let me ask you something I asked the group in another thread and never got an answer to: what would it take for you to conclude you're wrong, that natural-born citizenship didn't depend on parentage? For me, it would be a clear statement from a court that a particular person was not an NBC because they didn't have citizen parents. As far as I know, there's nothing like that. But what would convince you?

What I understood you to be saying (and we've established that I don't always understand so good) was that since Tucker tied the LoN to the 10th, that meant the 10th was based on the LoN, which proved that the Founders relied on the LoN for guidance on internal matters.

Correct.

-----

While I was saying that it seemed more likely to me that Tucker, in commenting on the 10th, said "in fact, it's just like the way Vattel describes relations between states in a federal republic,"
It's a fine distinction, and until Tucker shows up here, probably not one we'll be able to resolve.

Possibly, but from what I can see it may be a distinction without a difference. Mostly because there was actually very few things that did fall under federal jurisdiction when it came to the relationship between the States. Just my 2 cents.

--------

If we're not going back to that, do you have any other examples of where the distinction between a "proclaimed" NBS and a "natural" NBS made a functional difference?

This is a guess on my part, but from what I can see, the difference between this act and Blackstone is the term 'denizens', which were basically aliens that got special permission from the King to reside there.

I'm totally lost on this one. The only thing that could possibly come to mind would be that the 'thing to be remedied' was the ability of the King to proclaim subjects natural-born?

Maybe too many people that had been waiting in line got ticked because the King was trading status for favors? They were a pretty hedonistic group with the hunting and the wenching....and they weren't a bit shy of it either! LOL!

Conjecture is fun, but it ain't fact, so yeah, I'm stumped.

----

But I think it would be foolish of me to parse a sentence like "I really like learning psychology" as an endorsement of the book.

A fair assessment, but how would you feel if your son was a psychologist and said "I use this textbook in my practice".

That is, in essence, what Franklin said.

-----

I've read all the historical excerpts you and Jeff have provided, and I've tried to figure out for myself what they meant. But I'm also wary of starting from "first principles" (or "common sense" or "natural law") because in my experience, what most people mean by those terms is "what I think."

Yeah, they do the same thing with Constitutional law. Try to snip a piece here and there instead of seeing that if ALL the pieces don't click into place....somethings wrong.

-----

I'm interested in what the Founders thought as revealed by their words and actions, not in trying to figure out how they must have agreed with me.

CONGRATULATIONS! You just passed my benchmark for *honest researcher*!

-----

what would it take for you to conclude you're wrong, that natural-born citizenship didn't depend on parentage?
For me, it would be a clear statement from a court that a particular person was not an NBC because they didn't have citizen parents.

Don't look any later than the 14th Amendment. To my knowledge, the speeches on the floor of the House and the Senate was about the last time the original definition of 'natural-born citizen' was generally acknowledged. After that, everything became 'citizen of the United States'.

As far as I know, there's nothing like that. But what would convince you?

LOL! Tough question. Primarily because I know natural law and positive law are not the same thing.

To convince me, that would take a lot.

But I will flatter myself long enough to think that I'd consider another of the Law of Nations versions commonly known to the Founders that said such a thing might be enough to explore that avenue to see where it should lead. I will continue looking through things, well, because I never stop doing so.

The more you learn the more you realize just how ignorant you are! That's the way I feel about myself at this point in time, anyway.

>>>> Ha Ha Thats Very Logical-
you don't have to respond or even read this. I'm just pinging you because FR etiquette, IMHO, requires it since I'm putting your name in the post.

In fact, you might just want to duck N cover.

--------

Knock it off Jeff. Quit skulking in the shadows of Freepmail. If you believed in what your were saying, you would MAN UP and get it out in the open.

Your message this morning was a complaint about how frustrated I made you feel. It was in response to my post of apology to Ha Ha Thats Very Logical last night

I told you: > Some people deserve it.
and it has been nothing but a disgusting whine-fest ever since.

First two in a row-

Re: Re: Re: Cruz likely eligible to be President
From Jeff Winston | 03/22/2013 9:20:00 AM PDT read
> Some people deserve it.
Perhaps, but I’m not one of them.
Wow.
Thanks for simply confirming what an ugly individual you are.

Re: Re: Re: Cruz likely eligible to be President
From Jeff Winston | 03/22/2013 9:27:26 AM PDT replied
You know, I try to be polite to people.
I tried to engage you, in good faith.
You responded first by indicating pretty clearly that there was no evidence I could present which would ever change your mind, then by falsely accusing me of “repeating lies,” of being a “fraud,” and of being “paid.”
I wrote to you thinking it might be possible there was still a human being in there somewhere.
Sorry. My mistake.

---

Now, against ALL logic and reason, I had been working on a post to you in order try to reengage the conversation IF it could be done under certain conditions, so I wrote back-

Re: Re: Re: Re: Cruz likely eligible to be President
To Jeff Winston | 03/22/2013 9:49:17 AM PDT sent
What a shame. I’ve spent the last half hour composing a post to you in an offer to reattempt an honest conversation, and what do I find? Not one, but 2 nasty messages!
What exactly did you expect, Jeff? You’ve questioned my intelligence, my integrity, my adherence to the Constitution, my motherhood, put words in my mouth MORE than once, made a cowardly and thinly veiled THREAT by insinuating you could somehow influence the owner of the website for my removal, ignored direct questions, called me a liar....tell me Jeff
What DID you expect?
_________________
And if you think I now care one WHIT about what you think of me……
THINK AGAIN!

------

Your response

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cruz likely eligible to be President
From Jeff Winston | 03/22/2013 10:27:00 AM PDT read
> What a shame. I’ve spent the last half hour composing > a post to you in an offer to reattempt an honest > conversation, and what do I find?

I was the one who initiated a reattempt to open an honest and polite conversation with you.
I had hoped that I might find a human, but I received nothing back but venom.
A statement that I supposedly “deserved” your abuses.
Man. You don’t call that a “nasty” message? If you don’t think your response to me was nasty, I’m not sure what you think the term means.
I am willing to converse in an honest and polite way with decent human beings. If you decide at some point that you are similarly willing to converse in an honest and polite way, please let me know. I am open to such approaches.
I am not open to people first falsely and unjustly abusing me, then telling me that I “deserved” it.

----------

HERE’S MY REPLY WHICH I WILL NOT FREEPMAIL, BUT PUT HERE FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE-

No, the problem, Jeff, is that now that Ha Ha Thats Very Logical and I are engaged in a civil, adult conversation, you want to join back in!

Well.........

SUCK IT UP, BUTTERCUP!

You had your chance and completely, repeatedly and thoroughly abused it!! I also find your trying to assume the ill-fitting role of Mister Poor Little Innocent Me particularly disgusting!

and if you FReepmail me again, I WILL be pinging the mods back to this post!!

-----

GOODBYE!

it is not vague at all. Why is everyone so challenged by adjectival phrases? “Natural Born” modifies the word “Citizen.” What’s vague? You have two choices, the phrase either narrows or broadens the noun “Citizen” Well, since “Citizen” is all encompassing, “Natural Born” has to narrow the definition.

In the march towards an answer, there are only two categories here: Where you were born, and WHO you were born to. It’s not complicated. Prior to 1795, the idea was that being born outside U.S. territorial jurisdiction, you could still be “Natural Born”. 5 years, and one French Revolution, later, Congress realized they made a mistake and corrected it with the Immigration Act of 1795. They realized that WHERE you are born matters. And it sure as hell matters to the fraud in the white house. If where you were born did not define eligibility, he would have released whatever birth document he has a long time ago.

Keep this very simple principle in mind. You want a president devoid of any divided loyalities. He must only have the interests of this nation at heart. Period.

Allowing birth overseas for eligibility creates dual citizenship, creates complication over other nations asserting jurisdiction over an individual, and certainly creates a president who would NOT have this nation’s interests at heart.

Sorry, you’re wrong. The act of 1795 does not disqualify a person born to US citizens outside the US from the presidency. Such a person does NOT have dual citizenship automatically. They might choose dual citizenship (if the host country allows it under the circumstances) and THAT would disqualify them.
This act just states the broad terms of citizenship. To be other than vague, it would state the restriction. Since it is left general, we have to defer to the previous definition. I know you all have your canned arguments, and your opinions of how it applies and what it means. But the plain wording of the act, used as evidence in this thread, does not do what you claim. It does not disqualify. “Naturalized” disqualifies, “Natural Born” specifically qualifies, the unmodified “citizen” does neither. Since it is nuetral, then we revert to the definition in effect. You CANNOT assume a modifier not used. I could just as easily assume “natural born” as you assume “naturalized”. Neither is correct. Since this act is not directly addressing presidential eligibility, and since is uses neither modifier, it is not instructive of such person’s eligibility for the office. The greatest folly of your argument is the assumption that the child of a citizen in the military or a member of the diplomatic corp would, by being born outside the US, have a greater propensity to divided loyalties - it is an absurd assumption.
I am generally ambivilant on the specific question - my concern is that the law be followed. I have not seen, as yet, solid arguments making the case you are trying to make.
I’m not saying your opinion is wrong, but I am saying that the act of 1795 does not prove you right.
That’s law, that’s logic, and that’s language.

>>bioqubit
Prior to 1795, the idea was that being born outside U.S. territorial jurisdiction, you could still be “Natural Born”. 5 years, and one French Revolution, later, Congress realized they made a mistake and corrected it with the Immigration Act of 1795.

>>GilesB
The act of 1795 does not disqualify a person born to US citizens outside the US from the presidency.

OUCH!

I think you two may have stumbled upon such a fine point of law that you could cut yourself on it! :-)

The Naturalization Act of 1795
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.

So if you are born outside the US of 2 citizen parents, you are a citizen as long as your father had, at some point in his life, resided in the United States.

You CANNOT assume the more restrictive classification if it is not stated.

The Founders operated on the logical and reasonable fact that they could never list everything *not* included. It's why they 'enumerated' powers.

They operated on what is called Rule of Exclusion, and it's been around a very long time.

§ 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation

Since the Act of 1795 does NOT include the phrase 'shall be considered as natural born Citizens', citizens of that act are not considered to have those aspects, and thus are naturalized, not natural-born.

-----

Do you have any evidence to the contrary, or are you just going to tell me I'm 'wrong'?

Your logic is correct, to a point. What you miss is the previous INCLUSION. With that inclusion therefore, to restrict (without ambiguity), the new (1795) act would need to expressly exclude what was previously included. If the previous act limited the status of citizenship, the general use of “citizen” would not change that, either.

Since the most general term, “citizen” was used, it is imcorrect to assume a restriction that was not previously stated. The citizen statement was obviously put there to clarify that, in spite of the stated changes, the children born to citizen parents continue to be citizens. The logical assumption is that their previous status of “natural born” is also unchanged, since it was not explicitly removed.

This act is dealing with citizenship, not specifically with presidential eligibility, if it were otherwise your assumption might carry a bit more weight.

So - to summarize:
The previous act specifically stated that a person born to citizen parents overseas was considered “natural born”.
The 1795 act adds some restrictions to naturalization from the previous act, most notably a 5 year residency requirement instead of 2 - and included the children of newly naturalized citizens as citizens. In this case, since the parents were naturalized, and the children were born prior to that naturalization, it is logical to assume their “naturalized” status. In other words, they were not US citizens at birth, but by virtue of their parents’ change of citizenship, their citizenship also changed - or, they became automatically “naturalized”.

It then states that children born abroad to US citizens are to be considered citizens. They are citizens AT BIRTH, by virtue of their birth, and therefore do not require naturalization, in other words, they are “natural born” citizens.

With that inclusion therefore, to restrict (without ambiguity), the new (1795) act would need to expressly exclude what was previously included.

Which it does by repealing the previous Act.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

------

it is logical to assume their “naturalized” status. In other words, they were not US citizens at birth, but by virtue of their parents’ change of citizenship, their citizenship also changed - or, they became automatically “naturalized”.

Yes, children become naturalized when their parents become naturalized by the process of derivation.

-----

True, but the fact that naturalized citizens have natural-born children has been a standard since day one.

------

I also found it interesting both Acts contain the proviso:

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Most likely to prevent the tie of allegiance from being stretched too thin by having generations of 'natural borns' born overseas, IMHO.

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.