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

Washington TImes ^ | 5 minutes ago | By Matthew Patane

[Ray76]

And I have NEVER, EVER failed to distinguish the meanings of "citizen" and "natural born citizen."

Equating the 1790 Naturalization Act's "natural born citizen" with the 1795 Naturalization Act's "citizen", is a failure to distinguish the meanings.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have only one thing to say to you:

"Les naturels, ou indigines, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens."

Yes, the language is French, and much has been made of the fact that it isn't English, but let me ask you this. Which is more important, the language, or the principles?

We KNOW what were the English Principles. That a man is born owing eternal allegiance and servitude to the King. The language is familiar, but it is this PRINCIPLE which is FOREIGN to the American form of Government.

But what of Republicanism? Where were the examples of it? What nation was represented by a Republican form of government at this time in History? Only one, and that nation was Switzerland. It too was founded on Rebellion against a Monarchy.

If we wished to follow Monarchy, we could easily have looked to the English Model, but we chose to follow the path of a Free Republic, and so we looked for guidance from a writer who hailed from the only Nation on Earth which was an independent Republic. Of COURSE the ideas of Vattel would have to come from Switzerland. Everything else was Monarchy.

The language the ideas were written in was French because French was the language of Diplomacy. Vattel intended a wide distribution for his Principles of Natural Law, and to accomplish this, it needed to be written in French.

The question is, did we chose principles of Freedom and Republicanism written in a foreign language, or did we chose familiar principles of Monarchical Servitude written in our own language?

[Lazamataz]

To bad but the fact is Ted Cruz is just a U.S. Citizen. He is not a Constitutional U.S. natural born Citizen as required by Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause.

I hereby refuse to obey ANY RULES AND LAWS that the left refuses to obey.

Play to freakin' win.

[DiogenesLamp]

When you discuss it for 40 pages, and that discussion is core to the resolution of the case, that's not obiter dicta. That's NOT "a thing said in passing."

When you're quoting what other people said, it isn't YOU saying it. It's citing for reference. It is noting (in passing) what OTHER people said.

But Jeff, you are overlooking one central and very obvious problem with your theory. If it's SO obvious, why does it require 40 pages of Proof, a Year of Deliberation, and even a legal challenge rising up from lesser courts with the Freakin United States Government being the Plaintiff, and it still doesn't even manage a unanimous ruling?

If you were ever correct at any point in history, the only necessary response would have been "born on the soil." The Very FACT that this isn't adequate, is the best proof that it is wrong.

If you really believe the nonsense you're spouting, then it seems to me that something is definitely wrong with you. Whether it is physiological, or psychological, something is wrong there.

Well see, here's where we differ. I'm pretty sure you DON'T Believe what your spouting, in fact I have your own word that you don't.

You want law that creates Anchor Babies, but you don't want Anchor Babies. Yes, one of us definitely has a cognitive dissonance.

[DiogenesLamp]

I hereby refuse to obey ANY RULES AND LAWS that the left refuses to obey.

Play to freakin' win.

I agree completely with this sentiment. I will vote for Cruz if he wins the nomination. If they don't play by the rules, it is our DUTY to refuse to play by them.

This is an academic discussion, Not a practical one. The Practical answer is to vote for Cruz even if he's not eligible under Article II. Article II, like much of the rest of our governing document, no longer matters.

[Jeff Winston]

Equating the 1790 Naturalization Act's "natural born citizen" with the 1795 Naturalization Act's "citizen", is a failure to distinguish the meanings.

Ray, at least you are rational. You make points that have some validity to them.

Unlike that clown DiogenesLamp.

Here again you make a valid point, even if it's ultimately incorrect.

I don't fail to distinguish a difference in the meaning of "citizen" and "natural born citizen." I simply believe that when our Congresses subsequent to 1795 passed laws stating that children born abroad to US citizens were citizens, that they believed such children were natural born citizens, and that that was in fact their intention.

I'll put it another way: From the very beginning of our Republic, most people, including most of the public, most of our legislators, most lawyers, and most judges, including most of our Founding Fathers and their generation, believed that if you were a citizen at birth, then you were a "natural born citizen" and eligible to be President.

I think the historical evidence for that is very clear.

At the same time, there is almost no evidence at all that ANYBODY ever believed you had to be born on US soil AND have citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen.

This belief appeared, among a FEW people, for the first time in US history, around 4 years ago.

So our Congresses, throughout history, didn't include the words "natural born" when they passed laws saying such people were citizens because (if they considered whether such people would be eligible to be President at all, which most of the time they didn't) they didn't notice any need to. Everybody pretty much understood that if you were born a citizen, then you were a natural born citizen.

In other words, if you are a CITIZEN, AND your CITIZENSHIP was acquired at the moment of your BIRTH, then you are a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

And, with the possible exception of the Third Congress in 1795, that has always been the intention of those Congresses who have passed our laws.

I hope that helps.

[urtax$@work]

bears repeating Tenn —on some of the ga-ga Cruz threads.

[Ray76]

The Framers in Article II distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.

The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.

We know that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are different.

Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” by parental US citizenship.

Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be “citizen”.

In the centuries subsequent to the 1795 Act "natural born citizens" have continued to occur.

What other persons have parental US citizenship? Quite obviously those who are not "born beyond sea", i.e. those born within the US.

Congress in 1790 deliberately distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". Should we conclude that in 1795 Congress was no less deliberate when that distinction was removed?

[DiogenesLamp]

Ray, at least you are rational. You make points that have some validity to them.

And they are completely wasted on Jeff, because he is not. (Rational.)

Unlike that clown DiogenesLamp.

Being a clown is not so bad. It's MUCH Better than being a lap-dog, such as yourself.

Here again you make a valid point, even if it's ultimately incorrect.

His only mistake is being civil to you.

I'll put it another way: From the very beginning of our Republic, most people, including most of the public, most of our legislators, most lawyers, and most judges, including most of our Founding Fathers and their generation, believed that if you were a citizen at birth, then you were a "natural born citizen" and eligible to be President.

Which of course, fails to note the snake with the tail in it's mouth; That at the time, if you were a "citizen at birth" you were in fact, a "natural born citizen". The salient aspect being, of course, that you are born to someone from whom you could inherit citizenship.

I think the historical evidence for that is very clear.

It is absolutely clear, yet Jeff refuses to note or accept a jot of it. 100+ million Slaves, Indians, and Children of British Loyalists since the founding were denied citizenship though they met the birth on soil standard, and yet Jeff simply refuses to recognize the historical evidence. There had to be SPECIAL LAWS passed to GRANT them citizenship, Yet this idiot-bucket argues that they were "natural" citizens.

This belief appeared, among a FEW people, for the first time in US history, around 4 years ago.

Another propaganda meme from the Smogblow democrats.

So our Congresses, throughout history, didn't include the words "natural born" when they passed laws saying such people were citizens because (if they considered whether such people would be eligible to be President at all, which most of the time they didn't) they didn't notice any need to.

Alternatively, since they did not HAVE the power to make something "natural" which was not, they simply RECOGNIZED that their only power was that of "naturalization." You know, as explicitly spelled out in the powers of congress?

In other words, if you are a CITIZEN, AND your CITIZENSHIP was acquired at the moment of your BIRTH, then you are a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Yes, if you are a simple minded twit that is unable to think for yourself, such a simplistic concept is easy to remember. It isn't the truth, but such as you has no use for the truth.

Congress could pass a law right now naturalizing "at birth" everyone born in the world with blue eyes, and STUPID SH*THEAD JEFF will come along and claim "THEY ARE NATURAL BORN!"

The notion that Congress can just pass a law and MAKE someone "natural born" is a level of stupidity such that only a member of your special class of IDIOT can countenance it.

A special class of idiot that also objects to "anchor babies."

[Jeff Winston]

We know that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are different.

Right. And I have never said anything different.

Congress in 1790 deliberately distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". Should we conclude that in 1795 Congress was no less deliberate when that distinction was removed?

That is why I say that it may well be that the 1795 Congress intended to remove Presidential eligibility from such persons. Because there was, in fact, a change in the wording.

But I simply don't believe that the successive Congresses throughout US history intended the same thing. Since the general understanding of everybody was that citizen at birth = natural born citizen, I believe that those Congresses, starting with the 1802 one, were passing laws that they believed established Presidential eligibility for children born abroad to US citizens.

The legal experts in the 1830s obviously agreed with me. Bayard was crystal clear that such persons were eligible, and a bunch of legal experts including Marshall, Story and Kent, and others, read his book and said he was good to go.

You obviously don't agree with this, and to that extent you seem to disagree with the most prominent giants of the legal world of the early United States. I don't. I agree with them. And so do the great majority of legal scholars of today.

[Jeff Winston]

I agree completely with this sentiment. I will vote for Cruz if he wins the nomination.

Then I'm not sure exactly what the point is of your continuing to push the birther stuff.

Because a) There's not a single judge in the country who agrees with you, so there's not the slightest chance of any court in the country finding in your favor, and

b) all you might hope to accomplish would be to screw up Ted Cruz's campaign,

c) you've got a very, very hard sell on any of this in any corner of America, including at FreeRepublic.

d) it's not even clear exactly what idea you're pushing, since you seem to agree that the standard birther line that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen is nonsense.

Perhaps you can explain why you continue to push this idea.

[Jeff Winston]

...at the time, if you were a "citizen at birth" you were in fact, a "natural born citizen". The salient aspect being, of course, that you are born to someone from whom you could inherit citizenship.

Not one single Founder, Framer, legal expert, court case or judge, or anyone who ever knew any of the major Founders or Framers EVER said that a person who was born a citizen on US soil had to have citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen.

Your claim is simply delusional.

It is absolutely clear, yet Jeff refuses to note or accept a jot of it. 100+ million Slaves, Indians, and Children of British Loyalists since the founding were denied citizenship though they met the birth on soil standard, and yet Jeff simply refuses to recognize the historical evidence. There had to be SPECIAL LAWS passed to GRANT them citizenship, Yet this idiot-bucket argues that they were "natural" citizens.

No, I don't. I never said any such thing.

Children of British Loyalists, who remained in the United States and took up their duties as US citizens, were native citizens of the Colony in which they were born. And when that Colony became a state, they continued to be native citizens of the same political community. It mattered not that that community was now called a "State" instead of a "Colony." Their political parents - The Crown of England and the political community in which they were born and lived - got a divorce. They ceased to be subjects of England, but continued as citizens of the community to which JAMES MADISON said they owed their PRIMARY allegiance.

Slaves were not considered citizens, because they were legally counted as "property" and not as "persons." There were also legal measures passed in some places that proscribed persons of African descent from citizenship on the basis of their race.

But in every Colony and State, the child born within that Colony or State, of white, European parents, was a citizen, whether his parents were citizens or not.

As for the Indians, they were members of separate nations that we made treaties with, just as we made treaties with other foreign governments. If they left their tribes and entered the society of the United States, and had children born as members of our political community rather than under the tribal government, then those children were natural born citizens as well.

And this is the situation as it was expressed by our legal experts, Congressmen, judges and courts.

It's not controversial, and it's not that hard to understand.

[Ray76]

Bayard offers an opinion contrary to law. His opinion on this point is discredited.

[Jeff Winston]

Bayard offers an opinion contrary to law. His opinion on this point is discredited.

As we've been over many times now, Bayard offers an opinion contrary to YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the law was.

It's not contrary to the interpretation of Marshall, or Story, or Kent, or any of the other experts in Constitutional law of the early United States.

It really amounts to a claim that you understand the law better than Chief Justice Marshall, and Justice Joseph Story, and Chancellor James Kent, and James Bayard, and other respected experts who actually KNEW the Founding Generation personally, and whose lifelong legal careers were shaped in the milieu of the legal world of the early United States.

I don't find such a claim credible.

[Ray76]

Naturalization Act 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 born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States

What is there to interpret?

[Tau Food]

The question is, did we chose principles of Freedom and Republicanism written in a foreign language, or did we chose familiar principles of Monarchical Servitude written in our own language?

The way you have framed the question - why, you're just bent way over backward trying to be fair about this, aren't you? ;-)

I pick . . . DOOR NUMBER 3!

If the text of the Constitution expressly limited the meaning of natural born citizen to persons born on our soil to citizen parents, then I would repudiate here and now any Ted Cruz presidential candidacy. But, I have an unshakable faith that Jacob Shallus exercised the utmost care in preparing my instructions precisely as the Lord directed.

To me and (I firmly believe) to most other ordinary people living now or living in the 18th century, the most natural construction to be given to the term "natural born citizen" is that it is the equivalent of citizen at birth. And, the Framers, either intentionally or inadvertently, said nothing in the Constitution to forbid that very foreseeable and very natural construction.

So I am happy to report that I will join other ordinary citizens like Ted Cruz (Havard Law) and Ann Coulter (Michigan Law) in concluding that the Constitution does not forbid me from supporting Ted Cruz in 2016!

[Jeff Winston]

We’ve been over it several times already.

I doubt either of us is going to change his point of view.

[DiogenesLamp]

The legal experts in the 1830s obviously agreed with me.

A point which is more notable by the absence of PRIOR authorities which agree with you, and especially those who were in a better position to know what is the truth.

John Marshall and Bushrod Washington were BOTH delegates to the Virginia Ratifying Convention. Marshall especially worked with Madison to secure ratification of the constitution. They cite VATTEL on citizenship.

You obviously don't agree with this, and to that extent you seem to disagree with the most prominent giants of the legal world of the early United States.

And here you keep asserting these book-writing Lawyers have more significance than do ACTUAL Authorities who had first hand knowledge regarding the Deliberations. People such as John Jay, John Marshall, Bushrod Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Monroe, etc.

Once again, the names of REAL authorities never seem to make your list. Even despite your habit of twisting anything you're alleged authorities, Rawle, Story and Kent, have ever said as being on YOUR side, they were still NOT DELEGATES, they were NOT LEGISLATORS, so at best, they got their information SECOND HAND.

Given the circle jerk of British Trained lawyers it's not surprising that some people were misinformed.

[DiogenesLamp]

I agree completely with this sentiment. I will vote for Cruz if he wins the nomination.

Then I'm not sure exactly what the point is of your continuing to push the birther stuff.

Why Jeff, this is simply the distinction between someone motivated by political expediency, and someone motivated by truth.

Honest people tell the truth even when it hurts their side. You, (and most of the RNC) will rationalize what you want to believe until you perceive it as advancing your political goals, and then you will Crown it as your version of the truth.

To you, the truth is just a whore who will say whatever you wish if you just twist her arm hard enough.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not one single Founder, Framer, legal expert, court case or judge, or anyone who ever knew any of the major Founders or Framers EVER said that a person who was born a citizen on US soil had to have citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen.

Once again you repeat the same lie. Both John Marshall and Bushrod Washington cited Vattel on Citizenship, Ambassador John Armstrong (WHO WAS A DELEGATE) explicitly said that James McClure was not a citizen because his father didn't naturalize before his birth. James Madison backed him up on this. James Monroe Wrote that an American born man was not a Citizen because his loyalty lay with England. (ALL my Authorities were DELEGATES.)

Lying Jeff is simply going to repeat his lie again. We all know how this works Jeff. We tell the truth, and you repeat your lies.

Children of British Loyalists, who remained in the United States and took up their duties as US citizens, were native citizens of the Colony in which they were born.

Once again, you simply ignore the ones i'm talking about. Nobody is discussing the Children of British Loyalists who became Americans, the point is regarding the Children of British Loyalists who remained loyal to the Crown. American born, but acknowledged by BOTH SIDES to be British Subjects, not American Citizens.

Once more we've had to wade through your obfuscationist twaddle so you can pretend to have addressed the point. Well you didn't, and I didn't expect you to because you can't.

Slaves were not considered citizens, because they were legally counted as "property" and not as "persons." There were also legal measures passed in some places that proscribed persons of African descent from citizenship on the basis of their race.

The Descendants of Manumitted Slaves were American Citizens. I have posted in the past many examples of such, but you simply ignore that piece of contrary information like you ignore anything which doesn't fit your desired outcome.

But in every Colony and State, the child born within that Colony or State, of white, European parents, was a citizen, whether his parents were citizens or not.

No, only the Children of those who came here to settle became American citizens, some through derivative naturalization and others by being born to naturalized Americans. The children of transient aliens remained loyal to their father's country. We recognized that, (Offspring of British Loyalists you kook) and THEY recognized that.

George Washington:

“You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.” George Washington, Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July, 1775.

As for the Indians, they were members of separate nations that we made treaties with, just as we made treaties with other foreign governments.

Yes, they were EXACTLY like a Foreign Nation, except that their children didn't become Americans the way the children of OTHER Foreign nations did. (not till 1924) But they were Exactly alike, mind you!

If they left their tribes and entered the society of the United States, and had children born as members of our political community rather than under the tribal government, then those children were natural born citizens as well.

No they didn't. Not in the early days, The practice of allowing Indians to Naturalize was an artifact of the later 19th century. Earlier, they couldn't be citizens and it didn't matter where they were born. They could have been born in Philadelphia or Washington D.C., and they STILL wouldn't be citizens.

Once again, your theory has 100 million exceptions to it.

And this is the situation as it was expressed by our legal experts, Congressmen, judges and courts.

You mean all those ventriloquist dummies which sit on your lap and into who's mouth you put your own words.