Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CRUZ releases birth certificate
Dallas Morning News ^ | 8-18-13 | Todd Gillman

Posted on 08/19/2013 6:05:19 AM PDT by praytell

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last
To: Andy from Chapel Hill
If Ted is smart, he will petition the SCOTUS to rule on his eligibility as a POTUS candidate.

Why? As of now, nobody's stopping him. SCOTUS is an appeals court. They don't issue advisory opinions. Should Cruz decide to run and should a lower court find him ineligible, only then SCOTUS *might* get involved.

151 posted on 08/19/2013 4:14:03 PM PDT by Drew68 (Cruz '16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
So what is your opinion as to what constitutes a natural born citizen? Child of a US Citizen parent? Born in the US?

Child of two US Citizen parents. Born in the US, or in a foreign country while serving in the US military or other government service.

152 posted on 08/19/2013 4:25:28 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves Month")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
Of course they were since they grandfathered themselves in. Jeez!

No. Historians are UNANIMOUS that Washington, Jefferson and Madison were not natural born citizens because they "grandfathered themselves in." They were natural born citizens because they were all born in the Colony of Virginia. They continued that natural born relationship with the Colony of Virginia as Virginia became a State and a member of the United States, and as "subjects" became "citizens."

Real historians are UNANIMOUS in this understanding. Only the uninformed, idiots and birthers (but I repeat myself) claim otherwise.

153 posted on 08/19/2013 4:43:25 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

The best explanation of “Natural Born” can be found in post 13. A little common sense goes a long way in coming to the same conclusion however, since the reason for having the natural born citizen clause is to protect the country from infiltration by anyone who might possibly have an allegiance to someone other than the US. You don’t flip a coin with something like that. You don’t say oh maybe this guy is different. You set a black and white rule and you stick by it.


154 posted on 08/19/2013 5:10:49 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Was the French citizenship conferred at the actual birth of each, or granted later?

It was granted to each of those Presidents while they were adults - because unlike the citizenship of a child who was born in some foreign country (e.g., Canada), who then left that country permanently at age 4 and had no further relationship with that country at all (TED CRUZ), the citizenship status of THOSE Presidents came about because they had a REAL and MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP with the country of France.

In other words, Ted Cruz took absolutely no action to acquire his Canadian citizenship, and he has done absolutely nothing to maintain it.

Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison acquired their French citizenship because of their actual relationship, as adults, with the French nation.

The stronger claim of dual allegiance is on those who have an actual relationship with a foreign nation.

Since that was not in any way an impediment to Washington, Jefferson and Madison, not one of whom renounced their French citizenship, and every one of whom held their French citizenship during his term as President, then it can't be relevant for a person like Cruz, who HAS no such actual relationship.

155 posted on 08/19/2013 5:13:28 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Thanks for providing the source, and for noting that a secondary citizenship has no effect on a person's primary citizenship for the sake of Presidential eligibility.

Thanks also for noting that Bayard intended his Exposition of the Constitution to be "an instruction book for youth," and that it had "already been adopted in some colleges and seminaries."

156 posted on 08/19/2013 5:18:31 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

What an amazing deceiver you are! You answered the question, then tried to spin the reality to fit your sick agenda of obamanoid apologetics! NBC is a birth thing, not conveyed in adulthood or cancelled by having honorary citizenship in some other country conveyed upon you. Go back under your rock, obamaroid.


157 posted on 08/19/2013 5:18:55 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
NBC is a birth thing, not conveyed in adulthood or cancelled by having honorary citizenship in some other country conveyed upon you.

Yes, and not one single significant authority of history or law, in the 225 years since our Constitution was ratified, has EVER said that there was any qualification to natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility other than being born a citizen.

There's no requirement that no other country give citizenship to the person born a citizen. There's no requirement that the person have both citizen parents and birth on US soil.

If there had been any significant authority at any time in US history who had ever said either thing, you and the other birthers would've produced that quote by now. Instead, you've built your case on non-authorities (like Ramsay who was voted down 36 to 1 and still didn't say what you claim), on theories, and on assumptions that a Congressman who spoke about citizenship 75 years after the Constitution meant your idea of citizenship, when it's pretty clear that he didn't.

That resounding silence of anyone explicitly backing up your crackpot theories is very telling.

It tells the world, in fact, that your crackpot theories are exactly that.

158 posted on 08/19/2013 5:25:35 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Thanks for providing the source, and for noting that a secondary citizenship has no effect on a person's primary citizenship for the sake of Presidential eligibility.

LOL! It was a nice attempt...... trying to use my source concerning a voluntarily acquired citizenship obtained after reaching the age of majority for the purpose of commerce into some type of validation of you dual citizenship post.

Too bad your mechanizations are as transparent as water.

159 posted on 08/19/2013 5:26:51 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
If Ted Cruz decides to run for the presidency and he’s the best conservative and strongest candidate running, I’ll be supporting him to the HILT!! FUBO!!

Couldn't agree more, Jim. Like you, I'm not totally sold on Cruz yet, but if he decides to run and he's the best conservative and strongest candidate... TO THE HILT.

Thanks for the comment!

160 posted on 08/19/2013 5:27:52 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
but I repeat myself

That is all you do, and you don't get any more right having done so.

George Washington was born owing allegiance to King George III of England.

He was NOT a "natural born citizen" of a NATION which didn't exist at the time. He might be regarded as a "natural born citizen" of Virginia, but his NATIONAL citizenship was owed to England, then to the USA.

Federal citizenship (the One dealing with whether you are an Alien or not) is a superior level of Allegiance over and above State citizenship, or did you not get the memo?

Now what government did that little old Constitution presume to charter? Which one was it again Jeff?

161 posted on 08/19/2013 5:32:42 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

On this I agree.


162 posted on 08/19/2013 5:34:35 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I can read, Jeff.

You needn't FReepamail me just because you got a tingle up you leg when Jim Rob posted to you.

In fact, DO believe I have made the previous request that you DO NOT FReepmail me at all.

If you have something to say to me, say it out in public on the board.

163 posted on 08/19/2013 5:37:41 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Cruz disputes claim of dual citizenship with Canada, releases birth certificate

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’ office is rejecting claims that the Republican lawmaker — and possible 2016 presidential candidate — is a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen, and for the first time has released the senator’s birth certificate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/19/cruz-disputes-claim-dual-citizenship-with-canada-releases-birth-certificate/#ixzz2cSubz1YK


164 posted on 08/19/2013 5:41:15 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
and not one single significant authority of history or law,

And you can take it to the bank that this oaf will use this fallacy (and Lie) in every conversation on this topic.

He simply keeps repeating this lie in the hopes of convincing someone who hasn't seen the contrary proof.

like Ramsay who was voted down 36 to 1

And he will always mischaracterize this point as well.

And what's really pathetic, is the first person he can find that supports his stupid theory is Rawle. Poor lonesome Rawle out there all by himself.

Actual Delegates contradict him. Delegates like James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, John Armstrong, William Lewis and so on.

Quoted Bayard much Lately? I figured after you got b*tchslapped by T.F. Bayard you would have given that up.

" I B*tchslapped Jeff Winston."

165 posted on 08/19/2013 5:44:07 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I hope you realize that the Thirteen Colonies became thirteen independent STATES.

I hope you understand the meaning of the word "STATE" in 1776.

I hope you also understand that those independent States joined together to form a greater, united nation.

George Washington was born owing allegiance to the Colony of Virginia, and a SECONDARY allegiance to the King of England. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, tells us this quite clearly, and he's right.

In the great Divorce that was the American Revolution, the Colony of Virginia left the King, and the secondary allegiance of her citizens to the English Crown was dissolved. They stayed in the exact same relationship they had held from birth as members of the Colony of Virginia, only now she was a State, not a Colony, and they were citizens and not subjects.

And when Virginia became a member of the United States, all the natural born citizens of Virginia thereby became natural born citizens of the greater nation that was formed.

All this is pretty straightforward, and it's an accurate representation of the way historians and legal scholars understand the law, and of the way Founders such as James Madison understood it.

By the way, I hope you didn't miss post #72.

The gods have been kind thus far to birthers spouting Constitutional nonsense. But I think most FReepers now clearly recognize that it is, in fact, Constitutional nonsense. And it is Constitutional nonsense which, if entertained indefinitely, could irreparably harm conservatism and our nation.

If Ted Cruz runs and emerges as the best conservative candidate, it looks to me like the tolerance for your BS is likely to drop quite dramatically.


166 posted on 08/19/2013 5:45:06 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
In fact, DO believe I have made the previous request that you DO NOT FReepmail me at all.

My apologies. I assume you did make that request, in any even I have forgotten if you have or that you did. I will try to avoid it.

You needn't FReepamail me just because you got a tingle up you leg when Jim Rob posted to you.

Jim didn't post that to me. He posted it to a birther.

167 posted on 08/19/2013 5:48:06 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
George Washington was born owing allegiance to the Colony of Virginia, and a SECONDARY allegiance to the King of England.

LOL! The Colony of Virginia was in the domain of the King, it's why it was called an 'English Colony'.

-----

And when Virginia became a member of the United States, all the natural born citizens of Virginia thereby became natural born citizens of the greater nation that was formed.

Unless they decided not to.

Aliens by election may then be shortly described to be those subjects of the crown of Great-Britain on the fourth day of July, 1776, who have elected to remain such, and have not since become, and continued to be, citizens of the United States, or some one of them.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries

168 posted on 08/19/2013 5:52:20 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

And in case you missed it, here's the detail.


169 posted on 08/19/2013 5:54:39 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

As you know, there’s no real conflict between what Thomas Bayard said and what his father said.

Of course you will continue to falsely characterize it, just as you falsely characterize everything regarding this topic.

You really should get some psychological help. I am serious. Something is wrong with you.


170 posted on 08/19/2013 6:02:10 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
George Washington was born owing allegiance to the Colony of Virginia, and a SECONDARY allegiance to the King of England. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, tells us this quite clearly, and he's right.

You go on and on an on about this English Law sh*t, and now you come up with this utter contradiction of it? I guess you simply change your mind whenever it suits you. Under the English law, there is no question that primary allegiance is owed to the King. Virginia was his land too. (at the time.)

The Entire State of Virginia was no Different under English Law than was Wales, Scotland, or Ireland. There was no secondary allegiance. All allegiance was to King George III.

And when Virginia became a member of the United States, all the natural born citizens of Virginia thereby became natural born citizens of the greater nation that was formed.

The nation didn't EXIST when he was born. You aren't grasping the fact that you CANNOT have born allegiance to a country which doesn't exist when you are born.

You really have to stretch your nonsense in these pathetic attempts to cover it's nakedness.

By the way, I hope you didn't miss post #72.

No, I didn't miss it. I agree with it. I just don't feel the need to run after a pat on the head like one certain little boy who craves recognition.

If Ted Cruz runs and emerges as the best conservative candidate, it looks to me like the tolerance for your BS is likely to drop quite dramatically.

You can shove your veiled threats back into your brain orifice, you little spastic dweeb.

I shall not be the least surprised to see Liberals (and their Media dogs) do a 180 on Ted Cruz if he secures the nomination.

171 posted on 08/19/2013 6:11:37 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
As you know, there’s no real conflict between what Thomas Bayard said and what his father said.

You are absolutely right. Both of them completely agree with each other, and completely disagree with you.

Of course you will continue to falsely characterize it, just as you falsely characterize everything regarding this topic.

He says being BORN HERE doesn't make you a citizen. Jeff says it ALWAYS makes you a citizen. Jeff is wrong.

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

Thomas Bayard agrees with what we birthers have been saying all along. Not Jeff.

172 posted on 08/19/2013 6:17:16 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Unless they decided not to.

Indeed. Unless the elected not to. You are correct in so saying.

Just as in a divorce with teenage children, those who had previously been members of the Colonies had the choice of continuing to live with their mother, or of going off to live with their father.

Only in this divorce, generally speaking, the two parents lived a vast distance apart, and there was to be no joint custody, no summers with the dad (who was always a distant figure anyway), nothing except the permanent choice, unless one wanted to go someday and naturalize, to remain American... or to remain "English."

The vast majority stuck with their primary allegiance, and remained American.

173 posted on 08/19/2013 6:21:22 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; WhiskeyX

Birth Certificates are an invention of the 20th Century. Prior to that, births were “registered” in a registry book either in the local church or in a government office. In England, this registration was done by the government beginning in 1837, prior to that local parishes maintained their own birth registries. Government registration of births in the U.S. was not common practice until after 1900. Many churches maintained birth registries, but it was not mandatory and varied by denomination. The Family Bible was the usual form of recording births in this country.

So, a birth certificate would have been unknown to the framers of the Constitution. You were either a natural born citizen or you were not and they would have thought it bizarre that someone would have to produce a piece of paper to establish that fact. Your family and your neighbors would know the truth of it and you could never hope to gain the support of Presidential electors unless the responsible citizens of your state attested to your Constitutional eligibility. If you were born abroad of an American parent, that fact would be well known.

Naturalized citizens, on the other hand, were required to sign a loyalty oath as a condition of citizenship and that document served as proof of your naturalization. Such documents were required to be recorded at the Courthouse. The only time that a birth was recorded at the Courthouse was when a birth became a cause for examination by the Bastardy Court held to determine parentage.

I find it comical that people are using a 20th Century construct to argue over the original Constitutional intent of the Natural Citizen Clause. Natural Born Citizens don’t need No Stinkin’ Documents, at least in the minds of the founding fathers.

Since the framers did not choose to define the term within the Constitution itself, only the Supreme Court can interpret its meaning as it specifically applies to Presidential eligibility, something they have yet to do. I doubt they ever will.


174 posted on 08/19/2013 6:21:42 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

My dad didn’t have one for a long time. The court house burned down.


175 posted on 08/19/2013 6:25:28 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Post #13 on this very thread exposes your lie. You are a filthy twister.


176 posted on 08/19/2013 6:26:25 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

U.S. Presidents who held dual-citizenship at birth:
1) James Buchanan- His father (James Buchanan) was a citizen of Ireland who immigrated to the United States and was naturalized. Ireland at the time was part of the British Empire. Under the force of “nemo potest exuere patriam” the senior Buchanan remained a British subject his entire life under British law and bestowed that status to his son at his son’s birth. President Buchanan would have been a British subject his entire life under British law.

2) Chester Alan Arthur. Arthur, like Buchanan, was the son of an Irish immigrant (William Arthur). Like James Buchanan’s father, Arthur’s was also naturalized. As was the case with Buchanan, Arthur was also a British subject under British law. Unlike Buchanan, Arthur’s British nationality was rescinded with the passage of the Naturalization Act, 33 &34 Vict. c. 14 in 1870 (at age 41).

3) Barack Obama-When Barack Obama II was born, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

At the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom.

Additionally, Presidents Washington and Madison were honorary citizens of the French Republic, as was Tom Paine, who was elected to the French National Convention. The French Revolutionary Assembly conferred honorary citizenship on Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Madison in 1793.


177 posted on 08/19/2013 6:34:21 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
There was no secondary allegiance. All allegiance was to King George III.

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, says you're full of crap.

I think there is a distinction... between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign [i.e., the KING] established by that society...

What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign [that is, the KING]. If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.

BZZZZT! You lose again.


178 posted on 08/19/2013 6:35:56 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

When my father was born in 1915, my family had been in this country for over 300 years. He was the very first to have a birth certificate.


179 posted on 08/19/2013 6:39:11 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

On the shoulders of Leo Donofrio.


180 posted on 08/19/2013 6:40:25 PM PDT by bluecat6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Thanks for the comments.

I’ve actually known people who didn’t even have a birth certificate until pretty late in life.


181 posted on 08/19/2013 6:48:42 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Additionally, Presidents Washington and Madison were honorary citizens of the French Republic, as was Tom Paine, who was elected to the French National Convention. The French Revolutionary Assembly conferred honorary citizenship on Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Madison in 1793.

And Thomas Jefferson.

I didn't know that Paine was actually elected to the French National Convention.

182 posted on 08/19/2013 7:03:12 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Post #13 on this very thread exposes your lie. You are a filthy twister.

I love the venom. Looks nice on you. Kind of like a fashion accessory.

I'm sure you missed my comments on post #13, in post #102.

I also love the way birthers appeal to Bingham, who was neither a legal expert writing a carefully thought-out book, nor a judge deciding a case, nor a member of the Founding Generation, but a Congressman speaking on the floor of the House 75 years after the Constitution was written.

While ignoring, of course, all the good evidence we have from the EARLY United States.

And also while ignoring that Bingham and the other Congressmen in the exact same Congress literally threw away the wording birthers rely so heavily on a few months later, and substituted quite different wording.

Hmmm. I wonder why they did they. Could it be that they found that the wording they were using gave a wrong impression?

Oh. And also while ignoring that Bingham sat in the House chamber silently and without objection while James Falconer Wilson quoted William Rawle's exact quote that completely, absolutely contradicts the bogus birther claim that natural born citizenship took "birth on US soil plus citizen parents."

183 posted on 08/19/2013 7:12:19 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
1) James Buchanan

Born to naturalized father. Father's previous citizenship abjured.

Chester Alan Arthur

Hid the fact from everybody. What they didn't know they couldn't object to.

Barack Obama

Partus Sequitur Patrem. Alien in Spirit if not in the law. Exactly the sort of man the founders created article II to prevent.

184 posted on 08/19/2013 7:12:42 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I think there is a distinction... between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign [i.e., the KING] established by that society...

Madison was opining on natural law, not English law. (And on Behalf of William Smith, so this is him making a pleading, not writing a treatise on philosophy.) You don't get to change the rules back and forth Jeff. You don't get to change the rules to Natural law when it suits you and then change them back to English Law when THAT suits you. Under English law, you have sole allegiance to the King.

But let us take this opportunity to make the argument more clear. If your primary allegiance lies with the Community, then what of the allegiance to the Family? Is that not superior to that of the "community" at large? Is not your primary allegiance to your father?

Figure it out dumba$$.

185 posted on 08/19/2013 7:25:18 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Unless they decided not to.

Aliens by election may then be shortly described to be those subjects of the crown of Great-Britain on the fourth day of July, 1776, who have elected to remain such, and have not since become, and continued to be, citizens of the United States, or some one of them. St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries

Jeff always ignores those children of British Loyalists. He simply cannot grasp that there were a whole LOT of people born in America who were not Americans.

By the way, didn't you post a comment from Tucker's Blackstone which said something along the lines of every monarchical based law was expunged? (or words to that effect.)

I've lost track of that quote. I have so many bookmarks that I can't figure out which one it is.

186 posted on 08/19/2013 7:33:50 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
You were either a natural born citizen or you were not and they would have thought it bizarre that someone would have to produce a piece of paper to establish that fact.

Not so bizarre as you may think. Many thousands of men thought these pieces of paper would protect them from the British claims on their allegiance and servitude.

How did that work out?

Under the pretext of impressing British seamen, our fellow citizens are seized in British ports, on the high seas, and in every other quarter to which the British power extends, are taken on board British men of war and compelled to serve there as British subjects. In this mode our citizens are wantonly snatched from their country and their families, deprived of their liberty and doomed to an ignominious and slavish bondage, compelled to fight the battles of a foreign country and often to perish in them. Our flag has given them no protection; it has been unceasingly violated and our vessels exposed to danger by the loss of the men taken from them. Your committee need not remark that while the practice is continued, it is impossible for the U.S. to consider themselves an independent nation. Every new case is a new proof of their degradation. Its continuance is the more unjustifiable because the U. States have repeatedly proposed to the British government an arrangement which would secure to it the control its own people. An exemption of the citizens of the U.S. from this degrading oppression and their flag from violation, is all that they fought.

187 posted on 08/19/2013 7:53:21 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I've lost track of that quote. I have so many bookmarks that I can't figure out which one it is.

LOL! Welcome to my world. I've got so many my notes are getting notes.

-----

I think what you're talking about is this one where Tucker repeats the words of the Founders concerning the application of English common law in America;

But some late incidents having given rise to an opinion, that the common law of England, is not only the law of the American States, respectively, according to the mode in which they may, severally have adopted it, but that it is likewise the law of the federal government, a much wider field for investigation is thereby opened; of the importance of which, the general assembly of Virginia, at their session in the winter of 1799, have thus expressed their sentiments, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents.

"It is distressing to reflect, that it ever should have been made a question, whether the constitution of the United States on the whole face, of which, is seen so much labour to enumerate and define the several objects of federal power, could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect manner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law; a law filling so many ample volumes; a law overspreading the entire field of legislation; a law that would sap the foundation of the constitution, as a system of limited, and specified powers."
St. George Tucker Blackstone's Commentaries

-------

If it's not, well....I'm lost. :-)

188 posted on 08/19/2013 7:55:44 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You have illustrated the wrong document. This document is for a freed slave. All freed slaves were required to produce such documents on demand to prove that they were not chattel slaves. I think it coincident that he was also a seaman. He would never had been thought to be a British subject liable for impressment unless he had actually appeared on the muster roll of one of His Majesties ships. British officers actually acted with some care when impressing seamen as they could be held criminally liable for impressing someone not eligible. The sailors that they impressed from American vessels were usually British born and the Naval officers were acting properly under British law. President Jefferson held that they had no such right. Your certificate was signed in 1807, the same year as the Chesapeake-Leopard affair when a British warship fired on an American warship and impressed four seamen who had deserted from the Royal Navy. One was British born and three were American born, 2 of whom were African American former slaves. The Royal Navy hanged the British born sailor in Halifax. They released the 3 American born sailors, apologized, and paid reparations. The three Americans had voluntarily enlisted into the Royal Navy.

You are quite right about the impressment of American seamen by the Royal Navy, one of the proximate causes of the War of 1812. American seamen were recognized as British born primarily by their accents, but also by identification by Officers or foremast jacks who had served with them in the Royal Navy. While the United States recognized naturalization as a means of citizenship, Britain did not. They held that those born British Subjects remained such. British seamen, especially members of the Royal Navy frequently deserted when they touched at an American port and became naturalized citizens. Many later became American seamen and even joined the United States Navy as their skills were highly prized and service aboard American men of war paid well and was considered a far superior life style to the life of a British sailor.

Sailors did carry these certificates to establish their nationality, but it did them little good until we fought a war over it. Interesting stuff, but nothing whatever to do with birth certificates and eligibility for elected office. Thanks for sharing.


189 posted on 08/19/2013 8:26:02 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Awesome! Fantastic!

I’m serious about that.


190 posted on 08/20/2013 1:06:06 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Amazing. just to share.....My Great Grandmother came here with her American born husband in the early 1900’s from Quebec and was threatened with deportation during WWII... I didn’t know we were at war with Canada???? That is the reality. She was an old lady at that time. My Grandmother and her siblings were freaking out if she was to be deported. My Great Grandmother was half blind and not a threat to anyone. Her husband had passed away from the influenza epidemic many years before.... (WWI). Her ancestors emigrated to Canada from France in the late 1600 to early 1700’s. Pretty much on this continent prior to the founding of this country.


191 posted on 08/20/2013 1:15:38 AM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Lord, forgive us our sins and bring us to everlasting life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
You have illustrated the wrong document. This document is for a freed slave.

Well spotted, but beside the point. I searched for "seaman protection papers" and that was the best I could do. In fact, there were many thousands of them created, and they were used to convince the British that the person being interviewed was an American citizen.

The point remains. Papers to prove you are a citizen did not begin in 1915. They were at least a century earlier.

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

I had also thought to use the case of James McClure who presented his proof of being born in Charleston South Carolina to John Armstrong, (Ambassador to France), but John Armstrong (an actual Constitutional Delegate) refused to accept them as proof he was a citizen.

British officers actually acted with some care when impressing seamen as they could be held criminally liable for impressing someone not eligible.

Many months ago when I was researching this in more detail, I believe I read that many natural born American citizens were also detained and impressed. Thousands, in fact. The British simply asserted the rule "Born to a British Father makes you British."

Interesting stuff, but nothing whatever to do with birth certificates and eligibility for elected office.

Evidence that paper proof of citizenship was asserted and understood during the 1790s.

192 posted on 08/20/2013 7:42:31 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
But some late incidents having given rise to an opinion, that the common law of England, is not only the law of the American States, respectively, according to the mode in which they may, severally have adopted it, but that it is likewise the law of the federal government, a much wider field for investigation is thereby opened; of the importance of which, the general assembly of Virginia, at their session in the winter of 1799, have thus expressed their sentiments, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents.

"It is distressing to reflect, that it ever should have been made a question, whether the constitution of the United States on the whole face, of which, is seen so much labour to enumerate and define the several objects of federal power, could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect manner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law; a law filling so many ample volumes; a law overspreading the entire field of legislation; a law that would sap the foundation of the constitution, as a system of limited, and specified powers."
St. George Tucker Blackstone's Commentaries

If it's not, well....I'm lost. :-)

I think that's it. A pretty explicit statement that we didn't wholesale adopt the common law as a matter of Federal Jurisdiction.

193 posted on 08/20/2013 7:48:30 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
You have illustrated the wrong document. This document is for a freed slave.

After further reflection I wish to thank you for pointing this out. I have repeatedly attempted to inform Jeff that Freed Slaves became citizens, and were then able to pass on that citizenship to their children. I note on the document that it explicitly identifies Samuel Bedley as an AMERICAN CITIZEN.

So not only is this an example of a "Seaman Protection paper" it is further proof that I am correct about freed slaves being citizens.

This arrow will go in my quiver.

194 posted on 08/20/2013 7:57:43 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You may be right, but I wouldn’t use a pre printed form to try to prove your case. He may have been a citizen in the same sense as women were citizens, he could own property, including slaves, and could pass that property onto his children; but he probably couldn’t vote depending upon the state where he lived. The rules and laws surrounding manumission were varied by both place and time, so its not advisable to make too many generalizations.

A very interesting account in the form of a diary of a freed black man named William Johnson of Natchez, Mississippi can be found here:

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/identity/text4/williamjohnsondiary.pdf

As the abolitionist movement gained momentum, the life of freed slaves actually became more difficult, especially in the South.

The man’s name was Samuel Redley.


195 posted on 08/20/2013 8:19:35 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Just a few points of clarification to your comments. The discussion was about birth certificates, not seaman protection papers or manumission certificates. These were not birth certificates per se and were only held by a small fraction of the population. Birth certificates did not come into general usage until after 1900.

Mr. Madison’s comments were made after he became President in 1809 and were, in part, in response to the failure of seamen protection papers to prevent impressment of American sailors and of the aftermath of the Chesapeake-Leopard affairs which was an armed assault on American sovereignty. Commodore Barron of the Chesapeake was tried by Court Martial for his failure to defend his ship. The United States refused to accept the British demand that a sailor found without such papers could be legally pressed, we argued that their presence on an American vessel was sufficient to assert their status as Americans. In other words, they didn’t need no Stinkin’ Papers.

The numbers of Americans caught up in the press is not known, but certainly at least 1000. They fall into several categories:

1. Americans who had freely joined the Royal Navy (usually after a voyage to England), subsequently deserted and were really being returned to their enrolled condition rather than impressed.

2. British subjects who had immigrated to America and become naturalized citizens, a status not recognized by Britain.

3. American citizens born on U.S. soil. There were not too many of these as the laws of impressment did not permit it, but it did occur either in cases of mistaken identity or through arrogance of the Royal Navy officers involved.


196 posted on 08/20/2013 9:01:01 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“That is a fact. It is an irreversible fact. The Founders used natural born citizen to describe a born overseas citizen.”

No, that is a fictitious misrepresentation of the actual quotation in the 1790 Act of Congress. Congress actually wrote the Act to say the person born abroad was to be considered as a natural born citizen for the purposes of that very naturalization legislation. The legislative act did not say the persons were actual natural born citizens. The legislative act only said the persons were to be regarded for purposes of determining naturalization as if they possessed the same rights regarding naturalization and lack of need therefor as if they were natural born citizens who require no naturalization procedure. After Congress realized the natural born citizen wording produced undesirable results, Congress changed the wording to citizen in place of natural born citizens, and Congress took extensive efforts in additional provisions to limit additional avenues for foreign influence to abuse the naturalization procedures. This example serves to reinforce the definition of natural born citizen as excluding persons born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign.


197 posted on 08/20/2013 11:57:47 AM PDT by WhiskeyX ( provides a system for registering complaints about unfair broadcasters and the ability to request a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I am discussing how the expression “natural born citizen” is used by that Congress and Washington. They use it to describe one born overseas to US citizen parents.

Let’s say that you are told you must consider a certain person to have passed a cred check for a loan. You are the loan official, and this person applies for a loan. Someone asks: “Has he passed a credit check for a loan?” What is your response? Since you are to consider him as having passed, you are to say, “Yes, he has passed.”

Now, let’s say you are told to consider someone under the law as a natural born citizen. You are told that to run for the presidency, a person has to be a natural born citizen. You are asked the question: “Is he a natural born citizen for purposes of the presidential run?” What is your answer?

Well, since you’ve been told by law to consider him a natural born citizen, your answer would be, “Yes, he is a natural born citizen under the law.”


198 posted on 08/20/2013 12:16:36 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

“You got a lawyer to express an opinion similar to yours. Not impressed. In fact, this lawyer, despite his degrees, is demonstratively incorrect in his first min of the video”

For the official record, what are your credentials compared to Constitutional scholar and lawyer Herb Titus?


199 posted on 08/20/2013 1:30:44 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; All

“It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’ It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country.”

- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1833)

The above quote was part of Bayard’s discussion of qualifications to be President and Presidential eligibility.

Jeff, what you posted would work for John McCaine. He is a citizen by birth, born outside the country to citizens, plural, mother and father which is what this says is required to be a natural born citizen.

Obama and Cruz both fail. Both only have one citizen parent. BVB


200 posted on 08/21/2013 5:53:17 PM PDT by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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