Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.
Snip~
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”
Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“Proves nothing”
Yes it proves that the standard tradition, since the grandfather clause ended, that American presidents have been born to TWO U.S. Citizen parents (with the exception of Chester Arthur).
Sorry, it was an oversight. That quote came from"Naturalization in the American colonies, with more particular reference to Massachussetts" by Joseph Willard, in the Making of America library at the University of Michigan:
Among those naturalized, there were several persons who had left the State during the Revolution, and adhered to the crown, or, in the words of the statute, had "joined the enemies of the State." In the heat of the war, —September, 1778,- an Act was passed forbidding their return to the State, and providing for their removal in case of return. Should they voluntarily come into the State a second time, "without leave from the General Court," they were, "on conviction before the Superior Court, to suffer the pains of death, without benefit of clergy." All those persons who left the Province after the 5th of October, 1774, and before the "making" of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, and had taken English protection, were held to be aliens. By a law of 1784, these persons, if not named in the Confiscation Act of 1779, and not having borne arms against their country, might return to the State, under license from the Governor and Council. This license remained in force until the end of the next session of the General Court; at which time, unless the General Court had approved the license, or an Act of naturalization had been passed in favor of the individual, he was required " to depart the State."Not that it will matter. You've pretty well shown your mind is already made up.
Let's review. You claimed that the Founders considered themselves to be Aliens, not natural-born citizens, of the country they just created, and furthermore, that the entire population of the United States had to be naturalized and take oaths of loyalty before they could be considered citizens. I found that an extraordinary claim and asked for some historical evidence. You've provided references to naturalizations in Massachusetts--nowhere else--with no support for the idea that they were required of all residents. The fact that I still doubt your claim is more a reflection of the weakness or absence of your evidence than it is that I've made my mind up. Surely some historian must have referenced this one-by-one naturalization of nearly 4 million people you claim happened.
I’ve read the book. I suppose we can differ. I don’t really care. I actually care more about the Constitutional stuff.
And no, I'm not a "Fogger."
John Fremont, the Republican Party's presidential nominee in 1856, was the son of a French father who never became a U.S. citizen. Fremont was not elected, but no one at the time ever claimed that he was ineligible.
NO, of course you’re no Fogger. You just love their favorite word, ‘debunk’, you think Obama is legit & Arpaio is a fraud. But surely you couldn’t be a Fogger.
Love those precious details of the site you linked, too. Imagine, a homeschooling conservative family of 8 that believes Obama is honest & Arpaio & Zullo are liars. Isn’t that sweet. Do they live in Mayberry? Did the youngest son kill him a bar when he was only 3?
One thing all this clarifies. Namely, why you don’t give a rat’s patooty that Obama is destroying the USA. That part of it all is now crystal clear.
Isn’t it amazing how you have all this arcane knowledge at your fingertips. Where does it come from? Thin air...or do you have a favorite site that supplies info useful to anti-birthers?
I thought we were talking about the Constitutional meaning of natural born citizen?
Or is ad hominem attacks all you have?
Wait. I know the answer to that already.
Here's a clue: You can't justify your misrepresenting the Constitution by calling me names.
Now then, on to your post.
First, let's list the points in favor of Samuel Roberts.
You proceed to critique the man rather than the subject matter. No matter.
You failed to observe a key phrase in the title, "According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court". So you see, it is not Roberts' opinion, but that of the Judges of the Supreme Court.
Roberts does include "Some Others" (also a phrase from the title) and these are clearly marked in the Table of Statutes.
Listed in the Table of Statutes are two British Statutes concerning Aliens, one from the Report of the Judges (25 Edward III. Stat. 2), the other (7 Anne Chap. 5.) from Roberts. The pertinent part of the latter is largely a restatement of the former and seems to be included by Roberts for thoroughness.
Roberts then goes on to note,
"Prior to the American revolution, the stat. 13 Geo. II. c 7, prescribed the general rule for naturalizing such foreign Protestants, and others therein mentioned, as were settled, or should settle in the colonies.""On the establishment of the revolution, these provisions were superseded by a constitutional declaration in the old frame of government, by which every foreigner, of good character, coming to settle in Pennsylvania, having first taken the oath of allegiance, was enabled to purchase and hold real estates ; and after one year's residence was invested with all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that he was not capable of being elected a member of the legislature, till after a residence of two years."
"By the constitution of the United States however, the power of naturalizing foreigners is vested exclusively, in the legislature of the United States."
Roberts is quite right.
Here's a second problem: Roberts says, clearly, that US law is different from that of England. And he even quotes Vattel.
But he fails to state any basis whatsoever on which our law is taken to be different.
It is plainly obvious that United States law is different from England.
There is in the Constitution no Article, Section, Clause, or anything whatsoever which incorporates the common law of England into the Federal government of the United States.
There are reception statutes in the colonies, now states. Whatever species of the common law of England extant in the several states at the time of the Adoption, are by U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 prohibited from incorporation into the Federal government.
The constitution declares, that "this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
United States law is different from England.
And since it was the common law of every State in the Union, it became the common law of the country.
As mentioned, there are reception statutes in the colonies now states. So which state's common law should become the "common law of the country"? Should it be Pennsylvania? Virginia?
Is the common law of England in every state the same?
The acts of the British parliament are in force in the different states up to different periods; in some to the reign of one king, in others to that of a different king.
Thus the common law of England would be different in these two states.
Not only is the common law of England different among the states, each state legislature has altered it in different ways; thus the common law of the various states is in no way uniform.
The common law being materially different in all the sates, how can there be any common law in the United States?
How shall it be determined which of the states shall be considered as the standard, so far as to make their common law, the common law of the United States? Shall it be a majority of the states; or shall it be those states which contain a majority of the people of the United States? &c &c
Incorporation of the common law into the Federal govt is impracticable.
(Some of the above is paraphrased from "Observations of Judge Addisons Charge to the Grand Jury On the Liberty-of-the-Press" found in the Appendix to "Correspondence between George Nicholas Esq. of Kentucky, and the Hon. Robert G. Harper of South Carolina, on the subject of the Alien and Sedition Laws, 1798" The original document, as well as a transcript of the relevant pages is available.)
The jurisdiction of federal courts is defined by the U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. That written law does not grant to the federal judiciary the authority to incorporate other systems of laws of its own choosing, does not incorporate the common law of England, nor the law or constitution of the several states.
Therefore, in no way can the Federal govt. be said to be based on, or to have incorporated, the common law of England.
The children of aliens, born within the U. S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth; but remain in the condition of their parents; however, the naturalization of the father naturalizes all his children, who are in their minority and dwelling within the United States.
Our laws differ from the English laws but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature.
By the way, what about Lurking Libertarian?
What about citycenter?
What about Ha Ha Thats Very Logical?
What about Kansas58?
What about Longbow1969?
What about Mr Rogers?
What about Perdogg?
What about Mark Levin?
What about every other conservative radio host?
What about the Heritage Foundation?
What about National Review?
What about former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor?
For that matter, what about the entire current US Supreme Court?
What about every Republican in the US Senate? There are 45 of those.
What about every Republican in the US House of Representatives? There are 232 of those.
What about every judge in the country?
Are all of the above “Foggers?”
Wow. This must really be a big conspiracy.
Good outing!
Certainly there is more than one “Jeff Winston” but what are the odds of being a Democrat operative?
Busted.
Do a little research. United States Citizen John Pryor was John Fremont’s legal father, not Fremont from France. He was born out of wedlock. Fremont’s legal parents (Anne Beverley Whiting and John Pryor) were both Natural Born Citizens. Under the law at the time, a child did not receive nationality from a father outside of wedlock and all children born in legal marriage are children of the marriage whether biological or not. Therefore, John Fremont (who took his legal fathers U.S. nationality) was eligible to run for office as a natural born Citizen.
Hat tip to Seizethecarp who made this information known.
A wee bit touchy there, aren’t you? My goodness; I didn’t say you murdered your own granny; I said you are weirdly unconcerned w the irreparable damage Obama is wreaking on the USA.
That is what has bothered me about you from the beginning. You have never shown even a smidgen of heartfelt concern over what Obama is doing. Occasionally you throw out a perfunctory, ‘I don’t like him’, only to rush back to justifying him.
You’re on a conservative site but you don’t come across as conservative. I know of no conservative who is not aghast at what Obama’s doing. You act like you just don’t care. It’s creepy. It’s been creepy from the beginning.
Oh, & btw, this is no argument. It is my honest observation. This is how you come across. & no, I’m not the only one who’s noticed.
I've already given a long list of authorities from early America - almost all of them much better authorities than Roberts - who gave what they understood a natural born citzien to be.
Other than that, it's kind of hard to critique his opinion, except to say simply that he cites no authority for it. So it's just his opinion. And unlike Rawle (for example) Roberts was not a judge or authority of national scope. His area of responsibility was over several counties. Rather small.
You failed to observe a key phrase in the title, "According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court". So you see, it is not Roberts' opinion, but that of the Judges of the Supreme Court.
No, because he doesn't link that statement to any statement from the Justicies of the PA Supreme Court. And in fact, it's not even really part of the subject matter that was supposed to come from the Report of the Judges. That was the list of English laws deemed to be in force in Pennsylvania.
Is the common law of England in every state the same?
It was in regard to the basics of citizenship. 1. There is no law anywhere to the contrary. 2. Vice Chancellor Sandford said so. 3. The US Supreme Court agreed with him.
As far as "no law anywhere to the contrary" that's just plan foolish. You might have heard about our Naturalization Acts. If not look them up.
Oh - do please show where ECL is incorporated into United States law.
Jeff I’m convinced they only get fulfillment from conspiracy theories. Also there’s some blantant racism on this thread by the birthers. Carry on guys. Continue to allow the left to paint easy targets on conservatives. Your godfather Trump still supports you.
Almost edge919. The “Act of 1790” was entirely rescinded beginning with the 1795 Nationality Act. The term “natural born citizen” never again appeared in US Code, in laws created by Congress, because only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution. The 1790 Act was one of the clever bits of misdirection employed by Barry's Constitutional Law professor, Larry Tribe, and his born-again liberal republican, Ted Olson, when they helped to insure that Republicans would be silenced by helping McCain be considered as a natural born citizen. The vehicle was April 2008 Senate Resolution 511, sponsored by Obama campaign chair Clare McCaskill and Senate Judiciary chair, Jim Leahy, cosponsored by Hillary, Barack, Webb, Menendez, and several other senators. He wasn't, and the Democrats did a thorough job of proving it over a period of about ten years. SR 511 was cobbled together to confuse people after the previous McCain eligibility bill, S. 2678, Feb. 2008, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’, FAILED to pass.
Those who have followed this for over four years now must be figuring that the heightened obot activity at FR reflects concern on the left. It is easy for the newbees to identify the obots. They almost always use lots Alinsky’s 5th rule, ridicule. If they use insults rather than reason, you can be sure they are committed leftists, or Muslims (they work together, but are decidedly not the same).
FR is a wonderful resource, but vulnerable to obot blitz attacks. The obots will so dominate a thread that may contain reasonable arguments that sometimes more of the comments are between obots than dialog involving honest questioners.
For anyone really interested in legal explanation Mario Apuzzo continues to clearly explain our legal history on his web site puzo1.blogspot.com. Leo Donofrio gave up on our legal system and canceled his law licenses as he appreciated the almost complete corruption of our legal system. He is a brilliant legal researcher whose site remains on line for those who want to learn, naturalborn citizen.wordpress.com. Both Apuzzo and Donofrio engage the more competent obots, SMRSTRAUSS, and Dr. Conspiracy, who have cleverly led us on most of the possible wild goose chases designed to convince those who don't have the time or patience to carefully analyze legal cases.
Don't allow bullies to lie with impunity. Always return to original sources, because they are clear. Take a little time to think about the following paragraph and you will understand why George Soros’ acolytes, Center for American Progress CIO, Eric Malamud and his buddy Tim Stanley, CEO of Justia.com, removed citations from twenty five plus on-line Supreme Court Decisions to Minor v. Happersett. That way the casual law student or intelligent questioner, using Google to search for citations to Minor V. Happersett to see if it is important to natural born citizen, would get few “Hits”. Stanley admitted the corruption perpetrated in 2008, but claimed it was a “programming error”. He also blocked access to the Wayback Machine so that it would not be so obvious that he had corrupted his own database, which had citations correct until the Summer of 2008.
Minor v. Happerset, 88 U.S. 162, (1875)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
For good measure, here are some other original sources:
Chief Justice, Founder, Framer, John Marshall said in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814):
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Ohio Congressman, Army Major, prosecuting Judge Advocate in the Lincoln assassination, and principal author of the 14th Amendment John Bingham addressed the House in 1866:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…."
I could quote twenty other supreme court cases. There has never been another definition. Congress cannot pass a law affecting natural born citizenship. Eight efforts to amend Article II Section 1 were sponsored between 2002 and 2007, two by John Conyers, 1 by Robert Menendez, 1 by Orrin Hatch, and four others. The Conyers, Menendez and Hatch amendments would have rendered Obama eligibile, along with Schwarzenegger, Major Hassan, and every anchor child, born to aliens, to the presidency. The left would like you to believe that the definition, from our common-law, confirmed by Minor v. Happersett, has been changed by popular acclaim supported by our state-run media. More of our Constitution provisions are being attacked every day. If media declaration changes our Constitution, we have no Constitution.
Nice list. I saw one of the persons you listed on a rabidly anti-conservative anti-FR site bragging about what a blithering idiot they made one of our more prominent birthers look like. They were receiving lavish praise. I followed the link posted [so that the anti-FR goons could come here & drool over their subversive’s handiwork] & there was one of the people on your list. Baiting one of our more beloved posters and doing it so his moonbat posse could ridicule & verbally spit on the party in question.
If I just happened to see this w one party on your list, how many similar instances have I mised? I only spent a few hours some time ago touring the most rabid anti-conservative sites I could find. If in that tiny window I spotted one of your prized posters in action, how many more have I missed in the interim?
Real nice list you have there, JW. A real nice list of good, decent conservative freepers.
Seizethecarp,
How does the divorce of SADO and BHO SR figure in to this?
(Your post for reference;
“....The “5 years after the age of 14” only applies if the parents are married. Any US residence at all and any age of the mother will entitle the baby of a single US citizen mother delivered in a foreign country to have US nationality at birth,IIRC. That wouldn’t meet the Minor v. Happersett NBC standard or even the jus soli standard,of course,but it would meet the Marguet-Pillado dicta standard (which was cited I the Congressional Research Office paper on NBC status,BTW).
My reading of Kenya colonial marriage act and Hawaii marriage law in 1961 points to Stanley Ann’s marriage to BHO Sr. as being bigamous in both Kenya and Hawaii due to a tribal (not Muslim) marriage to Kezia. ...”
This is a wonderful point. I think most would tend to assume they are arguing with Americans. LaRaza, CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Q., any anti-American interest could be posting here.
This in and of itself, should give after-birther American posters great pause.
It won't of course but it should.
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.