Sen. Ted Cruz Triumphs in 2016 Presidential Straw Poll: Wins Early GOP Vote Over Walker, Paul

Washington TImes ^ | 5 minutes ago | By Matthew Patane

[DiogenesLamp]

To find the truth, it's better to be a trouble shooter, an engineer or a forensic detective, rather than a quote hunter, and let facts and your reason tell you the story and show you what the truth is.

One of my regular arguments is that their interpretation renders Article II pointless and so therefore their interpretation is wrong.

The "natural born citizen" requirement is intended to insure an allegiance and love of country. It is the duty of the father to impart this allegiance, and it cannot be expected to be accomplished simply by being born inside American Borders. It has to be taught.

Derivative naturalization through the father is a long recognized principle, and it is only so because the father has demonstrated his intention to be an American, and the children will naturally follow the allegiance of the father. "Partus Sequitur Patrem."

[Jeff Winston]

We've been over this several times already. Bayard's claim is contrary to law.

Yes, we've been over it several times already.

I said that you had a point, but I also noted that neither Chief Justice Marshall, nor Justice Story, nor Chancellor Kent, nor James Bayard agreed with you.

If Cruz runs and someone really wants to contest his eligibility on those grounds, they might sue, and if the case should reach the Supreme Court, I would expect a really good lawyer to pursue that line of argument.

I also expect that it would fail, for the reasons I've discussed in detail earlier.

[GBA]

There isn't a demonrat or rino that would pass on signing on to that campaign attack and, if necessary, legal action against Cruz, unless they can corrupt and tarnish him to their side instead.

Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother.

That's not even as close as the obama story to NBC eligibility, so you can count on them raising whatever hell they can and will, unless they can use Cruz's ego's run for POTUS to somehow cover their obama crimes.

Lots of law breakin' and treasonous stuff been goin' on 'round heyuh, doncha know.

[Jeff Winston]

If what you say is true, there would be no need to include the wording as they did in the eligibility requirement.

Are you talking about the grandfather clause? Did you even read the posts referenced in those links? Do I have to post the entire text? Or are you able to click on a link?

It is absolutely clear that the grandfather clause wasn't put in there for the purpose of making George Washington eligible to be President. It was put in there for the purpose of making people like James Wilson (born in Scotland) and Alexander Hamilton (born on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean) eligible.

Washington, Jefferson, and the other Founders who were born in any of the 13 Colonies-->States were all native sons, and the Founders considered all of them to be natural born subjects/ citizens.

For an explanation of why that's the case, click the links.

There's not a single competent historian or significant legal authority, and as far as I can tell, there never has been, who thinks the grandfather clause was put in there to make George Washington eligible.

When you have several opposing opinions, answers can be found, not by a battle of opposing quotes... but from determining intent and purpose, and then letting the facts tell you the truth.

Letting your agenda dictate your truth first, then cherry picking your facts and ignoring inconvenient counter data, is the wrong approach and almost always results in error.

To find the truth, it's better to be a trouble shooter, an engineer or a forensic detective, rather than a quote hunter, and let facts and your reason tell you the story and show you what the truth is.

This is exactly what I've been saying from the very beginning.

Incidentally, there's no "counter data" that I or any of the other reality-based people here have "ignored." We've looked at every single damn point raised by the birthers. I have a list of 48 bogus arguments made by birthers - which in fact includes every major argument I know of that they've made - and I can explain to you or anyone else exactly why each and every one of them is BS.

It's not the same for the birthers. We raise a point (like this one) and they either ignore it, or come up with some obvious fallacy to try and explain it away.

So it's completely clear to anyone who spends the time to really look at the arguments who's telling the truth, and who's slinging enormous amounts of BS.

[Jeff Winston]

Okay. So you recognize Bayard as an authority.

Not really. He wasn't a delegate, he wasn't a member of a ratifying legislature.

Okay. So, according to you, the ONLY authorities on the question are those men who were either a) delegates to the Constitutional Convention, or b) members of ratifying legislatures. Correct?

After all this time arguing with me, you still don't grasp my position? After all the times i've posted this excerpt, you are still clueless as to where I stand on this point?

Okay. Let's clarify your position. What do you claim is required in order for a person to be a natural born citizen?

[Jeff Winston]

Lots of law breakin' and treasonous stuff been goin' on 'round heyuh, doncha know.

On that, at least, we can agree.

[GBA]

There's not a single competent historian or significant legal authority, and as far as I can tell, there never has been, who thinks...blah, blah, blah, blah. So there!" "Your move."

See? "There you go again." Boring. Same old same ol', again and again. Boring.

Would it matter how many "competent whatevers" were shown to you by anyone?
Nope, of course not. Not yet anyway. So, why play?

You just keep playing the same...old...boring...lines...over...and...over...again...and...again...boring...until my ears are bleeding, boring.

You must just be a hoot at a party.

(Just trying to help you, brother. I can see you need it. So little time left...)

[GBA]

On that, at least, we can agree.

It's a start. I think I can work with that.

[Jeff Winston]

Would it matter how many "competent whatevers" were shown to you by anyone? Nope, of course not.

Of course it would.

Particularly when it comes to our best early legal authorities.

If John Marshall, Joseph Story, James Kent, James Bayard and William Rawle were all agreed, with the support of people like James Madison, James Monroe, and various others close to the Founders, that it took birth on US soil plus two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen, then I would be saying it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.

Instead, we have the exact opposite of that. They say it doesn't, so I say it doesn't.

Because I didn't start with some kind of axe to grind.

[Ray76]

Yes, we've been over it several times already.

I said that you had a point, ...

The point is not mine, but the Framers' and the law, both of which Bayard disagrees with.

[Nero Germanicus]

Since you don’t appear to care much for our current judicial system, I should point out that state elections commissions and election boards which are not comprised of judges, came to the exact same conclusions as the courts.

Federal judges serve lifetime appointments so that they don’t have to give a damn about being denounced or having their rulings treated with contempt by anyone. Judges have the power to hold any of us in contempt and keep us locked up until we show some respect and/or follow their orders.

There were eligibility challenges heard by state election boards in New York, Alaska, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Hawaii, and North Carolina.
You focus on what could be and what you think should be; I prefer to focus on what actually is.

[Ray76]

It's not the same for the birthers. We raise a point (like this one) and they either ignore it, or come up with some obvious fallacy to try and explain it away.

So it's completely clear to anyone who spends the time to really look at the arguments who's telling the truth, and who's slinging enormous amounts of BS.

Who's telling the truth and who's slinging enormous amounts of BS? Who is coming up with some obvious fallacy to trying and explain it away? Direct your attention to the claims of Bayard as distinguished from the law, the Framers, and the 1790 Naturalization Act.

[Fledermaus]

Amen

[DiogenesLamp]

Since you don’t appear to care much for our current judicial system, I should point out that state elections commissions and election boards which are not comprised of judges, came to the exact same conclusions as the courts.

You seem deliberately unaware of the fact that people BELIEVE what they are told by authority figures. Actually, I think you know it all too well, for it is the basis of your CONSTANT citing of said authority figures opinion's on the subject.

The Lawyer types have been interpreting Wong Kim Ark for the last hundred years to mean that anyone born here is a citizen, and they routinely conflate "citizen" with "natural born citizen." It is a chain of faulty logic that has become popular through endurance and repetition, and we are seeing the consequences of a hundred years lack of clarity.

Nowadays we cannot conceive of there being different classes of citizens, because we have been taught to think of everyone as being in the same class, but the reality is that the Wong Court had no trouble at all dividing people into different classes with different rights.

Federal judges serve lifetime appointments so that they don’t have to give a damn about being denounced or having their rulings treated with contempt by anyone. Judges have the power to hold any of us in contempt and keep us locked up until we show some respect and/or follow their orders.

As do other petty dictators. The wonder is why a Free Republic should tolerate such behavior.

There were eligibility challenges heard by state election boards in New York, Alaska, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Hawaii, and North Carolina.

To what point? The landscape is poisoned with false doctrine and a prevalent fear of retaliation for anyone challenging the "Americaness" of the first "black" President. Any public official who acted on the charge would face the wrath of a very large coalition of national news agencies, Civil Rights groups, an Army of legal authorities calling him a fool, and in short, a likely end to his career.

We may like to regard ourselves as a group of deliberative, civilized people, but in reality we are a tribe of howling savages who are more motivated by emotion than reason.

You focus on what could be and what you think should be; I prefer to focus on what actually is.

You see the little, contemporary picture, I see the larger historic picture. You are pragmatic, like the Vichy, who felt it was better to live with the Nazi occupation than to fight it. After all, we must deal "with what actually is." Right?

[DiogenesLamp]

Okay. So, according to you, the ONLY authorities on the question are those men who were either a) delegates to the Constitutional Convention, or b) members of ratifying legislatures. Correct?

The PRIMARY authorities are the lawmakers. They are made up of two groups of people (Convention Delegates, Ratifying Legislators.) with some overlap.

The SECONDARY authorities are those informed by them. This group would include people who were not members of either the Convention or a Ratifying legislature, but would include those people who communicated with them to the extent that the intentions of the Delegates was conveyed.

Others, with no direct connection to the delegates are simply repeating hearsay or espousing their own preferences.

Okay. Let's clarify your position. What do you claim is required in order for a person to be a natural born citizen?

In 1787, it required an American Father. The Wife was automatically the same allegiance as the husband. There was no such thing as "split" allegiance. The Father's allegiance determined the children's allegiance. Once again, I direct you to my tagline. "Partus -- Sequitur -- Patrem."

This is the default standard throughout human history.

[GBA]

Very simple to figure out if he would just start with what the FFs were trying to accomplish and be able to say to all of US about the one person with so much power, with only the eligibility requirement to start with, before leaving the rest up to we, the people:

Whether you love or hate that person, he or she is one of US. That's it. We have to start there.

Regardless of the word used, and obviously mistakes have been made past and present as JW's mega spam posts show, what is the FF's intent and purpose by what they chose to call "natural born citizen"?

Because to those in their world citizenship could potentially come from place of birth or from the Father or even the Mother, the only way we all agree that one person is one of US and no one else, is if they are born here to citizen parents at the time of their birth.

Pure as it gets that way and no one can argue or dispute it based upon the circumstances of their birth.

How much more easy, straight forward does it have to be?

Honestly, you have to try not to understand it, it is that simple.

But mix up the word natural or native? Whether accidentally or on purpose? Yep, looks like that has happened.

In fact, both have happened right here, right now.

On the national level, it looks like fraud and treason to me, just some hick in flyover country.

[Jeff Winston]

The point is not mine, but the Framers' and the law, both of which Bayard disagrees with.

No, the point is yours, because you've expressed a particular INTERPRETATION of the law.

Marshall, Story, and Kent - all of whom were among our nation's very most distinguished experts in the law, with careers of Constitutional and legal interpretation spanning for decades, disagreed with your interpretation.

[Jeff Winston]

In 1787, it required an American Father.

Okay. So we are at least agreed that the claim:

"'Natural born citizen' means 'born on US soil of two citizen parents'"

is hogwash.

[noinfringers2]

Jeff I would like to get your published references for Marshall, Story, and Kent as to their actual opinions/decisions on the definition of ‘natural born citizen. With due respect to your opinions I believe these men’s actual presentations would help my personal understanding.

[Ray76]

Interpretation? Hardly. It is the letter of the law, the 1790 act, and the 1795 act et seq.

Bayard’s claim disagrees with the Framers, Congress, and the law. Continuing to cite it doesn’t make it any more “truthier”.