Washington Post Hits Ted Cruz With 12 'Birther' Stories In Two Days

Breitbart ^ | 8/21/13 | John Nolte

[BigGuy22]

Um, McCain?

That can’t be such a hard question, can it?

Why does it drive you into rabid rants?

[Brown Deer]

tick tock, tick tock...

[BigGuy22]

“tick tock, tick tock...”
__

Let me guess. You’re waiting for me to prove I went to school? Can you really be serious about that?

Or is it just another silly dance because you don’t want to answer the simple, yes-or-no McCain question?

[Brown Deer]

That can’t be such a hard question, can it?

if you had an IQ aboove 100, then you would already know my answer. ;-)

tick tock, tick tock...

[BigGuy22]

“tick tock, tick tock...”
__

LOL, you’re going to have to do your silly little dance with someone else. You are too ridiculous for words.

[Brown Deer]

silly little dance?

bye, bye troll.

funny thing about 0bot trolls. They tend to repeat themselves and forget about about the past. No matter how often you answer their ignorant questions, they don't remember your answer and are too stupid to find it.

[SvenMagnussen]

“LOL, I got it. You have concrete evidence of the President’s having executed an Oath of Renunciation ...”

Certificate of Naturalization and Certificate of Loss of Nationality are documents formally documenting two different events.

I viewed the result of a FOIA request which indicated Stanley Ann removed Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) from her passport. Obama would not have been on her passport if he were not a U.S. Citizen. He would not have been removed from her passport if had not obtained citizenship of a non-U.S. country. And, somehow, you demand I post proof of Obama’s Loss of Citizenship after I said Obama naturalized in 1983.

Obama’s birth certificate was not publicly available until he released it. Obama could release a copy of his Certificate of Naturalization, but he chooses not to do that. Yet, you don’t demand Obama release his Certificate of Naturalization. Why is that?

[BigGuy22]

“Yet, you don’t demand Obama release his Certificate of Naturalization. Why is that?”
__

Why is that? Isn’t it obvious?

There is absolutely no reason to think that he ever had a Certificate of Naturalization, because no one has ever proved that he ever lost his natural born citizenship. It makes no sense to demand to see something if you have no evidence that it exists.

Remember how you’re not going to show us the proof until you’re called as a rebuttal witness?

[Jeff Winston]

It could indeed be depressing to watch these people.

For the past couple of years, in fact, I’ve watched them savage and misrepresent our Constitution, our history and our laws with all kinds of patently false nonsense, all while claiming to be “conservatives” and calling anyone who stands up for an accurate understanding and respect of our history, Constitution and laws names like “traitor” and “troll.”

[edge919]

urse it says that all that's needed is for a person to be a citizen by birth. It says that ABSOLUTELY DIRECTLY.

Except that the only citizens by birth were "all the children of citizens." It is a QUALIFIED statement. The context defines citizens by birth as the children of citizens. And your Rawle quote is equally misleading because it is describing the circumstances at time of the passage of the Constitution. Aliens who swore their allegiance to the United States became automatic citizens, thus their children born in the country were citizens. Neither of these quotes say what you desperately but incorrectly want them to say.

[Ray76]

You finally admit that Bayard is incorrect:

"From a LEGAL point of view, though, [Bayard] may not be correct."

[denydenydeny]

Why they hate Cruz is best explained by Ace: Liberals' Obsession with Ted Cruz Rooted In Anger over His Betrayal of His Class

[Jeff Winston]

You finally admit that Bayard is incorrect: "From a LEGAL point of view, though, [Bayard] may not be correct."

You're not following the details of that conversation very well, Ray.

Which may be my fault, a bit. I should've been more explicit as to exactly whom I was referring to.

I wasn't referring to JAMES Bayard. There is no real evidence to contradict his statement that "citizen by birth" is all that is required for a person to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

I was referring to SECRETARY OF STATE THOMAS Bayard, his son, who many decades later said that Robert Greisser was not a United States citizen, though born on US soil to a NON-RESIDENT German father.

I said that I certainly understood THOMAS Bayard's (anti-birth-tourism) position from a POLICY point of view.

But if you look at the LEGAL PRECEDENT (whether you like that legal precedent or not), THOMAS Bayard may have been incorrect in his declaration that Mr. Greisser was not a US citizen.

I hope that clarifies the statement.

[Jeff Winston]

Except that the only citizens by birth were "all the children of citizens." It is a QUALIFIED statement.

No, they weren't, edge. First of all it is NOT a "qualified statement." The succeeding clause is a consequence, or an example. Ask your English teacher about this.

And as clearly stated by William Rawle, "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

So it is certainly and absolutely NOT true that "the only citizens by birth were 'all the children of citizens.'"

And your Rawle quote is equally misleading because it is describing the circumstances at time of the passage of the Constitution.

No, it isn't.

Rawle wrote that quote in the year 1829, more than FORTY YEARS after the Constitution was ratified.

In fact, Rawle is ABSOLUTELY EXPLICIT as to the time frame he is referring to. The sentence IMMEDIATELY preceding that one reads,

They [those who were citizens of a State WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED] became citizens of the latter [the United States], without ceasing to be citizens of the former [their own State], and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a State became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States.

So it is absolutely, 100%, crystal clear that William Rawle is stating that all of the people born on United States soil, since the ratification of the Constitution, are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS whether their parents are citizens or aliens, and are eligible to the Presidency.

Absolutely, 100%, crystal, clear.

Neither of these quotes say what you desperately but incorrectly want them to say.

I'm not "desperate" about wanting the Constitution to say one thing or the other. I never have been. It is birthers who, again and again, try to twist the plain meaning of words (just as you've done with these two quotes) to try and contort them into saying things that they clearly do not say, or into NOT saying things that they very clearly DO say.

Now I can't think of any reason to do that except for what you call "desperation," to maintain a belief that goes against the plain wording of history.

So I ask you the same question I ask the other birthers: Why are you so committed to an idea that is clearly not in accordance with the history of the intention of the Founding Fathers, that you are willing to try and twist the English language until it breaks (misrepresenting the voices of our early leaders and legal experts along the way) in order to try and prop up what is obviously a false meme?

And now, doing so not only at the expense of the Constitution and history, but at the expense of conservatism itself.

[RobbyS]

The 1990 edition of “Black” says this of Natural-born citizen:” Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or citizens temporally residing abroad.” Given that his natural mother is and always has been an American, Cruz qualifies.

[edge919]

No, they weren't, edge. First of all it is NOT a "qualified statement." The succeeding clause is a consequence, or an example. Ask your English teacher about this.

Nonsense. All children of citizens is NOT a consequence of citizenship by birth. It's the other way around. Citizenship by birth is a consequence of being a child of a citizen; it's the only way someone could become a citizen if born outside of the country, which was the same as for inside of the country at the time the quote was written. If what you wanted to believe was true, then there was no need for the 14th amendment.

Rawle wrote that quote in the year 1829, more than FORTY YEARS after the Constitution was ratified.

Context is key. The rest of the quote immediately prior to the part you're focused on emphasizes how people became citizens upon the adoption of the Constitution. It doesn't say it's talking about the present day:

The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States.

The quote is simply a continuation of who became natural-born citizens immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, just as I said. By the next generation, the only natural-born citizens would be those persons born of citizen parents. If what you wanted to desperately believe was true, there would have been no need for the birth clause in the 14th amendment. And we KNOW DEFINITIVELY from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that your misinterpretation of Rawle's commentary was not a common belief, otherwise, there would have been no need on the part of the government to deny Wong Kim Ark's birth citizenship — yet they did. And even the Wong Kim Ark decision admits by way of legal citation that the children of aliens were not considered to be citizens at birth prior to the 14th amendment because they were not subject to the jurisdiction.

the lawmaking power ... has denied to [aliens] what pertains to other American citizens -- the right of transmitting citizenship to their children -- unless they shall have made themselves residents of the United States or, in the language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, have made themselves "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

A second citation refers to Scottish parents who had to meet a domicil requirement to satisfy the subject clause, meaning citizenship by birth to aliens is not automatic nor natural-born citizenship.

In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power"

The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.

Why are you so committed to an idea that is clearly not in accordance with the history of the intention of the Founding Fathers, that you are willing to try and twist the English language until it breaks (misrepresenting the voices of our early leaders and legal experts along the way) in order to try and prop up what is obviously a false meme?

Dude, this whole question smacks of desperation. There's no twisting of history or the intention of the founders. It was expressed in clear and unambiguous terms in Minor v. Happersett when it called "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" the "nomenclature" of the framers of the Constitution. Here's my question to you. If what you believed about Rawle is true, why does the Minor court unanimously rely on a citizenship definition that is based upon birth to citizen parents?? Why do they not simply accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen at birth?? What would be the need for talking about being born to parents who were citizens?? br

[edge919]

The Supreme Court trumps Black. It was unanimous in exclusively defining natural-born citizens as “all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens.” It has also affirmed in multiple cases that the citizenship of a child naturally follows the status of the father, not the mother. Cruz does not qualify.

[American Constitutionalist]

If anything the discussion of Cruz is bringing the birther question to the forefront and the liberal media is not helping to squash the issue to hide it.....
The more they squirm, the more this issue get's the light of day that it deserves.
The discussion of Cruz being a GOP presidential candidate put's the liberals and the media on the defensive.
Cruz ? he's not eligible, but let the liberals try to say that and at the same time defend their stance on Obama's eligibility issues.

[Ray76]

Alexander Hamilton - Attended the Convention on May 18; left June 29; was in New York after July 2; appears to have been in Philadelphia on July 13; attended Convention August 13; was in New York August 20--September 2.[1]

June 18 - Hamilton delivered his plan in a speech that "occupied in the delivery between five and six hours" This is the speech that led to the famous charge that Hamilton advocated a monarchial system. This was denied, and it was replied, that "he proposed a system composed of three branches, an assembly, a senate, and a governor."[2] There are several versions copied down, all of which specify the Executive "to be a governor elected, during good behavior, by electors chosen by the people in the election districts" (with slight variations in wording).

Hamilton's more detailed plan given to Madison at the close of the Convention, states in Article IX § 1, No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.[3]

This plan differs from that presented June 18.

According to a letter[4], Hamilton was chagrined when his plan (June 18) failed and he left the House in disgust (June 29), he returned however on a subsequent day (July 13?, August 13?) and delivered his sentiments in writing, then went to New York (August 20-September 2).

There is no record of any presentation by Hamilton on July 13 or August 13, although this does not rule out any written transmittal. If a written plan was delivered it may be lost.

Hamilton claimed the detailed plan given to Madison delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.[5] It is true that he propsed a system composed of three branches, an assembly, a senate, and a governor. Although details vary it is the general structure of the government adopted. The detailed plan may have been political cover[6].

There is no way to know if any delegates knew of Hamilton's "born a Citizen" idea. The record does not support any claim that they did.

_____

[1] http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003443%29%29

[2] http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003315%29%29

[3] http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003449%29%29

[4] Anonymous Letter to Alexander Hamilton. New York Augt. 30th. 1793

A publication appeared some time since in Greenleaf's paper, charging you with having moved in Convention that the Goverment of the United States should be by a King, Lords & Commons--I took some pains to discover the author of that piece, but without success -- But a conversation lately happened between Comodore Nicholson & Mr. Leonard Bleeker, in the hearing of others, in which the Commodore said; he had read the piece before alluded to, but doubted the truth of it untill it was lately confirmed by Mr. Abraham Baldwin, who was also a member of the Convention--This Mr. Baldwin did publicly in a pretty large company at the Commodores own Table. He said your motion was seconded by Mr. Gover Morris & that you was so chagrined when it failed that you left the House in disgust; That you returned however on a subsequent day, delivered your sentiments in writing, & Came off to New york, declaring you intermeddle no farther in the matter -- Notwithstanding you returned, & assented to the Constitution as it is -- This writing he suggested contained your Ideas of the kind of Government proper to be adopted -- In repeating from other persons, words are often changed; but the foregoing is the substance of what the Commodore reports Mr. Baldwin to have said -- I leave to yourself the expediency of taking any notice of it.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003294%29%29

[5] http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003449%29%29

[6] Jared Sparks visit to James Madison, April 25th, 1830

recounts an anecdote

It is well known that Hamilton inclined to a less democratical form of government than the one that was adopted, although he was a zealous friend of the Constitution in its present shape after it had received the sanction of the Convention. He considered it less perfect than it might have been, yet he thought it an immense improvement on the old confederation. He drew up a plan in accordance with his own views, which he put into the hands of Mr. Madison, who took a copy of it, and returned the original to the author, telling him at the same time that he had preserved a copy. Mr. Madison says he knew not Hamilton's motive for doing this, unless it was for the purpose of securing a written record of his views, which might afford a ready confutation of any future false statements respecting them.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003390%29%29

[Ray76]

The anonymous letter writer claims that Commodore Nicholson had it confirmed to him by Abraham Baldwin (delegate from Georgia) that after Hamilton’s plan failed Hamilton left and “returned however on a subsequent day, delivered [his] sentiments in writing, & Came off to New York”

An investigation of Baldwin’s papers might provide some clues as to whether Hamilton did supply a written plan upon his return (July 13 or August 13), and if so what the contents of that plan were.

It would be interesting also to determine the identity of the anonymous letter writer.