|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Posted on 08/25/2013 7:24:55 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Edited on 08/25/2013 7:26:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) is the hottest commodity in Republican politics these days, winning rave reviews everywhere he goes on the I’m-not-announcing-anything-but-I-just-might-run-for-president tour.
Today, Cruz heads to New Hampshire to raise money for the state Republican Party. If history is any guide, the Granite State will pose the toughest test thus far for the Texas Republican’s national ambitions.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Ted Cruz Ping!
If they love liberty they will...
Hey kinda early yet. What is his ‘vision thing’ to prosper the country?
Ted Cruz - 2016
Bump.
I’m getting mighty tired of “Republicans” (and Democrats) all sending every job they can to foreign competitors.
And yes, that is what is happening.
Meanwhile America is now 17 trillion dollars in debt, and that continues to get worse.
BRING BACK AMERICAN MANUFACTURING.
Now.
Not in 2016. Not in 2014.
Now.
Sunday, in the afternoon.
WaPo, will anyone read it?
great post! Loved it!
Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as a Senator. Sen. Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve in the Office of the President or Vice president. He needs to take responsibility and promptly quash speculation about his being a candidate for POTUS in 2016.
uh?
NO Cruz is eligible.
I hope he doesn’t run but if no other true conservative comes forth then let him run
how foolish to say he isn’t eligible
Ted Cruz - 2016
I would think that being so close to Canada and having Canadians visit often that they would accept Ted Cruise big time. Why not? What makes him any different than any other Canadian?
Ack, only 10.
Watch Ted run, 2016.
Please point out the relevant part of the US Constitution that supports your opinion of the meaning of "Natural Born" citizenship requirements.
The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born Citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ cannot possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?
There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.
OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?
There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.
Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?
'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.
What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable". The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.
The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).
Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320?
CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens at birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, these are not really 'Citizens at birth', the are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz 'spokespeople' will always say 'by birth'), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.
That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'.
If he wants to be “liked” he needs to go on Facebook.
CCCCCCCCCCCCRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
It’s possible he will do well here.
It’s a very funny state.
You - -
or the electors who choose our presidents. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.)
Yes, it does seem pretty unnatural for a patriotic citizen parent to give birth to a child and not have that child be a NBC.
I hardly noticed your vicious attack on natural law.
You can plant an apple tree in the middle of an orchard of oranges and it will still produce only apples, not oranges. That is the nature of an apple tree, and it is unchangeable.
Of course, the same goes for people. Ted Cruz's mother was an American citizen made in the USA. Even in the middle of a Canadian orchard, she could produce only a thoroughly American son.
Ted Cruz - 2016
Under nature's laws, there is no other possibility! ;-)
Ted Cruz - 2016
However, the powers that be will NEVER allow him to gain too much traction. No matter what they gotta do to stop it.
“This is called natural law.”
That is a totally false analogy.
Among patrilineal cultures for thousands of years, the child’s citizenship was determined by the father’s citizenship, because the mother’s citizenship was also determined by her husband’s citizenship. This was the basis for the Roman laws and jus sanguinis. When some jurisdictions adopted jus soli as a principle of law to determine citizenship on the basis of the place of birth, there arose a conflict between the claims of competing jurisdictions. Under the principles of natural law a sovereign jurisdiction could perpetuate itslef without the manmade enactments of statutory laws or codification of manmade common-law only when the child is born in a circumstance where the citizenship of the natural parents are no different than the jurisdiction that is the plae of birth or the jurisdiction that is the place of birth claims no obligations of allegiance upon the child at birth. In these circumstances the child is a natural born citizen because no other sovereign is in a position to claim the allegiance and obligation from the child but that of the natural parents having the same citizenship.
When the traditional relationship between the husband and wife occurred with the emancipation of women and redognition of citizenship aprt from the husband or male guardian, there arose a new circumstance under which the mother of the child could have a citizenship different from the father of the child. This circumstance then required a manmade and therefore unnatural law and a statutory law to determine which of two or more sovereigns would be determined by a manmade act and not a natural occurrence to be the child’s citizenship. If the child were truly a natural born citizen, there could only be one possible citizenship and sovereign. The very fact there can be more than one possible choice of citizenship immediately indicates the child cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of any state, because a manmade law had to used to determine which of the citizenships would become effective.
Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canad with a father who was a Cuban citizen, a mother who was a U.S. citizen with authority to confer her U.S. citizenship to her child only when qualified by the U.S. statute of law. Since a child is a natural born citizen only in the absence of a manmade statute of law to authorize the citizenship, the U.S. statutory law authorizing his U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother disqualified him as a natural born citizen by definition.
Under nature's laws, there is no other possibility! ;-)
And I would also add that during the time of our founders (because of the automatic citizenship of the wife) there was no other outcome.
Baloney. Under the laws of nature, we have always known the identity of the mother. The father - not so much.
If you should find an orange lying beneath an apple tree, don't blame the apple tree!
Ted Cruz - 2016
Try using your own words instead of repeating somebody else's. There are reasons to do that.
I don’t know where you’ve been, but you are talking to someone who has for many years been debating the finer details of the natural born citizen controversy. Frankly, I don’t have enough hours in the day for the coming years to go back to the basics and haggle endlessly over them with folks who have no intention of even considering the merits of the controversy. The very fact you would suggest it is necessary to quote a definition for a phrase of natural law directly in the Constitutiion is an indication you cannot be taken seriously. The Frramers did not go around defining the laws of nature in the Constitution. Natural law was observed to exist as it was recognized in llegal treatises, coomon-laws embracing the natural law principles, and in court decisions incorporating statements of natural law.
The are numerous Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision describing the application of the natural born citizen, all of which have been discussed as infinitum on Freerepublic. I’m certainly not going to spend hours gathering them together for the purpose of this simple post. If you so desire, you can look them up yourself and we can debate the merits on the respective threads discussing thos specific cases.
Yopu might also consult the various legal dictionaries and general purpose dictionaries to see their definitions for such terms as “natural”, “natural parents”, and so forth. When you do so, please note how the definitions are careful to note how natural law is the opposite of manmade statutory law. Sir edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 cited earlier authorities to note how manmade law “datus” made a subject, whereas natural law resulted in a subject born “natus” by nature of the birth in the absence of a manmade act. Calvin’s Case 1608 is of course not the only such sources of the practice of determining natural born citizenship solely in the absence of “datus” statutory laws. In other words, the condescending scorn is wholly inappropriate and entirely unproductive.
If you want to debate the issue sensibly, then debate the specific elements of disagreement. Leave the ridicule and scorn at home. Such behavior will be entirely unimpressive.
Anyone who wants to be prsusive will need to explain how an unnatural manmade law, a statutory law, or the enactment of a public law can be anything other than the exact opposite of a natural law and the opposite of a natural born citizen.
As matters stand now such an endeavor appears to me tantamount to Bill Clinton trying to persuade the court that Fellatio or oral sex is not oral sex.
Oh? And, who decides whether a candidate is a natural born citizen?
You - -
the Supreme Court - -
or the electors who choose our presidents. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.)
Indeed.
That is why your analogy was so utterly false...among many other reasons. The identity of the mother is not the subject matter being addressed by the application of natural law. In a patrilineal culture, the mother is the chattel or property of a husband, who is her master and guardian. In the patrileneal culture, the husband and master possesses the woman in part to produce his heirs and forge alliances among other families, clans, tribes, and nations. The wife had to take her husband’s and master’s citizenship to preserve the duty of obediance and loyalty to the husband, the husband’s family, the clan, the tribe, and so forth.
Of course,m if you really want the example of a matrileneal culture, take the Polynesians for example. Ownership and inheritance of property were through the female lineage only. The heir was the daughter. When the Mother produced only sons, she had no heir available to whom the estate and the civil power could be bequethed for inheritance. This problem was remedied by the expedient of taking one of her male sons and naturalizing him at birth as a daughter. He was required to be “considered as” a female and the daughter of the mother, inheriting the mothers civil powers and properties. Surely you did not intend to define such a daughter as a natural born daughter?
I understand you have an argument, everyone does.
So, in 2016, you're going to argue that the voters and their electors should deem Ted Cruz to be not a "natural born citizen" and thus ineligible to be president because his American mother was the chattel property of his father, a Cuban. Well, good luck with that one. Anyone who has ever seen a rerun of I Love Lucy is going to find that argument to be humorous, but incorrect.
And, what will be your pitch to Jewish voters?
I'm not saying you shouldn't come up with whatever precise NBC definition you wish to assist you in voting, but the rest of us are equally entitled to do the same. Expect at least some small variations in opinions. ;-)
That is the heart of the problem right now. The Democrats with the complicity of the Republicans have been steadily dismantling the apparatus provided to the Citizens in the Constitution for the enforcement of such provisions in the Constitution. These avenues are too manyto dertail in this forum, but examples range from the popular election of the President instead of by Electors, to popular elections of the Senators instead of the State legislatures to the destruction of the popular Federal Grand Jury and the SCOTUS 20th Century establishment of the unconstitutional standing doctrine in court procedure. In combination, these and many other measures such as fxing the maximum number of Congressmen in the House of Representatives have served to wrest the power to try and punish violations of the Constitution away from the Citizsens and put those powers in the hand so fan elite seeking impunity for the unconstitutional acts.
The battle over the natural born citizen clause is only just one facet among hundreds where these erosions of Citizen powers has had consequences today. Note ho in the last decade to two decades Democrats and Republicans in the Congress attempted to introduce bills which would amend the Constitution to remove the natural born citizen clause from the Constitution. It should be observed how there would have been absolutely no need whatsoever to introduce bills for such legislation if the natural born citizen was synonymous with citizen born as they falsely claim. Note lso how the SCOTUS and the Executive would be different today had the natural born citizen clause been enforced as they feared when they failed to get the votes to remove the natural born citizen clause with a Constitutional Amendment.
So, if your argument for such an unnecessarily narrow and precise definition requires that we learn French and study eighteenth century Swiss philosophy to understand what you're talking about, you're precise and narrow definition is in trouble. The people of this country don't fear that they might elect Prince Charles to be our president.
Ted Cruz is as American as any of us!
Ted Cruz - 2016
Don’t be ridiculous. I was only explaining the origins and usages of the legal concepts. The United States emancipated women and later granted women theright to retain their U.S. citizenship in the event they married a foreign husband. Formerly, a U.S. woman’s marriage to a foreign husband resulted in her automatic expatriation as a U.S. citizen. Even after the statutory law was changed to stop such expatriations upon marriage, U.S. law continued to follow international agreements in which the father’s citizenship was the principal determinant of a child’s citizenship, absent various specified exceptions to the general rule. We saw this in the case of barack hussein obama and his mother Stanley Ann Dunham. In accordance with international laws on the subject, the U.S. law looked upon this 18 year old mother as a child bride of a foreign husband. Since the wife was still considered to be a minor under international law and the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States, she was not emancipated. Her adult guardian was changed from her father to her foreign husband. Consequently, her lack of emancipation and adult status resulted in her being unable to convey her U.S. citizenship to her child. By default, the child’s citizenship became that of the father for purposes of jus sanguinis inheritance of citizenship. However, since the United States uses a combination of jus sanguinis and jus soli, the child could acquire U.S. citizenship if and when the child was born in the jurisdiction of the United States. If the child was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States, the child could not acquire U.S. citizenship by means of jus sanguinis or jus soli. Instead, barack Hussein Obama would have been bor a British citizen, Canadian citizen, or a citizen of whatever other jurisdiction in which the birth took place.
In each case, however, it took a manmade law and not the natural circumstance of the birth to determine which sovereign to whom the child owed a duty of obediance. A natural born citizen by definition can owe the duty of obediance to only one sovereign a the time and palce of birth. A natural born citizen requires and cannot have a manmade statutory law determine the soveriegn to who the child owes obediance at birth.
But, read what you've written. Do you really think that any significant number of voters or their electors (the people who, under our Constitution, choose our presidents) are going to feel compelled by that argument to exclude from their consideration a candidate like Ted Cruz who is a citizen by birth, who has spent his life in America, who was educated in America and whose national loyalties clearly belong to the United States?
Quite frankly, I don't think the vast majority of ordinary voters who lived during our country's founding would have any idea what you're talking about. "Citizen at birth" is a much more natural construction of the term natural born citizen.
But, if you want to limit your choices in selecting a president, you are free to do so. Your vote is your vote just like my vote is my vote. ;-)
“Unnecessarily limiting the pool of available candidates to exclude candidates who were citizens at birth and who have spent their lives in this country does not further the purpose of that provision.”
Unnecessary? I have to laugh on that one, because the Founders viewed lmitations of this character as absolutely vital to the survival of the Rpublic. They were certainly right to do so. They had just been subjected to centureis of dynastic wars which often featured absolute rulers who were imposed upon them from above from a society who often did not even speak their language.
for examples, look at: the Danelaw, and King Canute; William the Conqueror; the assortment of English monarchs raised abroad from engalnd; King James; the Scottish succession; the hanoverians; the British efforts to subvert the United States from the Revolutionary War to the American Civil War; the French and Austrian installation of Emperor maximillian of Mexico; and so forth.
At the endo of the American Revolutionary War, the unpaid and very ill supplied and ill kept Continental Army attempted to get George Washingto to allow them to cron him King of the United States. To his eternal credit, George Washington put down those ideas quickly and forcefully. The soldiers of the Continental Army were so furious and angered by the Continental Congress and its failures to pay their back wages and uniforms, they were in enough of a mutinous mood to lynch members of Congress. Under these conditions the members of Congress were ever mindful of the danger of some monarch’s heir coming to the United States and garnering enough support to be installed as the monarch of the United States or one of its seperatist parts.
Given the way in which a british King abdicated his throne to marry an American divocee and the way Winston Churchill’s mother was a U.S. citizen until her marriage, the necessity for careful control of who has access to the command of the armed forces and executive branch of our government is not to be underestimated.
“So, if your argument for such an unnecessarily narrow and precise definition requires that we learn French and study eighteenth century Swiss philosophy to understand what you’re talking about, you’re precise and narrow definition is in trouble. The people of this country don’t fear that they might elect Prince Charles to be our president.”
narrow? Now that is a strawman argument if there ever was one. The definition of natural and natural law are about has broad a definition as there ever can be. Start with Black’s Law Dictionary, ballantine’s Law Dictionarythe merriam-Webstaer Dictoinary, the Oxford Dictionary. Then go to the foreign language dictionaries, French, German, Russian, italian, Spanish, Japanese, and you name it. The legal concept of a natural law being a condition in which manmade law is and must be absent are one of the broadest and most universal legal concpets out there.
Furthermore, this nonsense being spouted that this is all nothing more than a wild “birther theory” is nothing more than derogatory abuse being used to obfuscate the observable truth it is all based upon a chain of historical practices extending backwards to the Roman Republic and earlier. If you doubt thiss then look for yourself at Calvin’s Case in 1608 and follow the changing English and French nationality p practices back into the 14th Century. While doing so, never forget how this is all about who has the power and the obligation to do what in the society. That is precisely why there has been a millenials long struggle between the legal philosophers and their efforts to “discover’ natural law and the more down to Earth powers that be employing mandmade laws often contrary to the results of natural law.
So it still is today, as the Socialists-Communists of the EU utilize the governments to deny the citizens of the member nations the right to vote for and against membership in the EU. It is the same old struggle in Europe, but just different players donning different robes to conceal their grabs for dictatorial powers.
The Founders and Framers made their views clear in the Naturalization Act of 1790, signed into law by President Washington:
“the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
And in today’s parlance, current U.S. law states that one of the criteria for being a Citizen of the United States at Birth is:
“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...” -US Code Title 8 Section 1401
Well, of course, that's one of the problems that i have with your argument. I agree with Justice Scalia that when interpreting the Constitution, we should be searching for the views of "ordinary citizens" rather than just the views of a handful of that generation's elite:
"The Second Amendment provides: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that '[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation."
I'm just not convinced that most ordinary voters (then or now) were/are familiar with the somewhat intricate concepts upon your argument is based. If some of the leaders of that generation wanted to bind everyone with a narrow, precise definition for the NBC term, they really should have laid it out in the text.
Keep in mind that is the voters and their electors who decide these issues. Keep the arguments short and sweet. ;-)
actually i think that the problem with Obama, he may be a citizen but he didn’t live here and has a real imperial mindset that it pervasive overseas.
Ted Cruz is far more American that Obama.
Thats’ JMO.
ditto!
Sorry, but the major authorities of the early United States say you're wrong. Ted Cruz is as eligible as any President who's ever served.
Maybe a better approach than stating emphatically and declaratively that someone is not eligible based on YOUR interpretation of supporting documents and the thought processes of the Founders, instead of what they chose to write down in the Constitution, might be to state that it is something that needs to be clarified by Congress and the Supreme Court.
But let's be clear, according to US Law and the US Constitution, as of today, Ted Cruz is eligible to be POTUS.
Let's also be clear that according to the documentation left behind by the legal experts of the early United States, "natural born citizen" absolutely DOES NOT require both birth on US soil and citizen parents. It only requires that a person be BORN A CITIZEN, which is exactly what Ted Cruz was.
This was explicitly stated by James Bayard in his Exposition of the Constitution, and that exposition was approved by the legal experts of his day. It was also used to teach the Constitution in our colleges and seminaries.
Here's the basic problem with birthers. This is the fundamental fallacy.
They start not by going and reading history, law and the Founding Fathers and early legal experts, with anything like an open mind.
They start with the conclusion. Then they go looking to "prove" it.
Or, at the very least, they start with a THEORY, that they then go looking for evidence to "prove."
And whenever evidence pops up that contradicts their theory, they go to all kinds of contortions to discredit it, twist it into saying something it never said, or flat-out deny it.
That's not how history works. That's not how competent and honest people process history. Competent and honest people begin by saying, "Let's go see what the Founding Fathers and our experts in the law have had to say." They then carefully and objectively weigh the quality of the evidence in each direction - if they have more than one theory of what something meant - and they go with what the evidence, interpreted in context, tells them.
So they derive their THEORY from the evidence. They don't come up with a nice-sounding theory and then go try to "prove" it and ram it down other people's throats even though it's in extensive conflict with the evidence.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The Canal Zone at the time was not a possession or territory of the United States so McCain was not eligible to be POTUS either.
Pass. NO AMNESTY for illegal foreign presidents!
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.