Posted on 03/13/2014 8:34:40 PM PDT by mandrews222
Are you confused about the claim that Ted Cruz is not a natural-born citizen, with all its attendant disinformation? Well, here is your answer.
We have gathered together the top arguments of those who challenge Senator Cruz’s eligibility to serve as president, along with exhaustive research and links to original sources, and condensed it all into one, bite-sized yet authoritative piece. We have done all the work for you, assembling a definitive reference you can use any time you hear someone say that Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for and serve as president.
So without any further ado, here are the Top Ten Birther*Arguments against Ted Cruz’s eligibility, and the reasons they are completely wrong.
Argument 1 – “Natural-born citizen” (NBC) and “Citizen at birth” (CaB) have completely different meanings.
Answer – No, they do not. They are synonymous. If you think the idea they aren’t synonymous is silly, you may not need to go on, because unless it is true, the entire debate is over. You would also be in agreement with the Congressional Research Service, which published a paper in 2011 reaching the same conclusion. Trying to argue that they do not mean the same thing is akin to claiming the terms dog and domestic canine mean completely different things. The burden of proof rests with the Eligibility Challengers. I have never heard or read anyone provide any proof whatsoever for the contention these terms have different meanings. There is no case law, and nothing else in the U.S. code or the Constitution itself, lending support to the idea that the two terms have separate meanings. Claims to the contrary are dealt with serially throughout this primer.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernfreepress.com ...
You here appeal to the SCOTUS and invoke a general principle of interpretation employed in some cases, yet you either are unaware or are consciously disregarding that the SCOTUS has indicated the interpretive principle to be used when construing the very phrase at issue -- "natural born citizen."
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark the Court stated:
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."
* * *
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
So rule of interpretation laid down by the SCOTUS was NOT "look at each word in the phrase and determine its significance," but rather "understand 'natural born citizen' in light of the principles and history of the (English) common law." The Court then proceeds in Parts II and III of the lengthy opinion to analyze the jus soli meaning of the English common law term "natural born subject" and show how that same rule as to birth status was carried forward into the colonies and under the original Constitution through the American common law phrase "natural born citizen."
That means that "natural born citizen" carries with it the common law jus soli principle of England, NOT the continental rule suggested by Vattel. The latter was the interpretive rule urged in the Wong case by the U.S. government and the dissenting justices. It's the position that lost.
Because of their parents citizenships, your kids could have those issues.
If our Founding Fathers knew how much this country has deteriorated by their oversights, I guarantee that had both NBC and 'marriage' been defined, we'd have a more civilized society and less corrupt government today.
Specifically, we wouldn't have a traitor in the White House.
That means that "natural born citizen" carries with it the common law jus soli principle of England, NOT the continental rule suggested by Vattel.
Our Founding Fathers rejected English interpretations in favor of Vattel's every chance they had.
bfl
The Constitution doesn't use the term "marriage" at all.
The issue raised in the post to which I replied is which rule of interpretation should be used as to specific Constitutional language. Why you think some other term not found in the Constitution is relevant in this context escapes me.
This idea of natural law vs positive law makes little sense when applied to citizenship matters, as all political entities are created by men through laws. Therefore, all questions of citizenship of those political units MUST be determined by laws created by men who also create the political unit.
There can be no natural born citizen except one recognized by the laws of that political unit, so ALL citizenship is granted through laws.
This is different from ideas of free speech or self-defense, which do NOT require the existence of any political unit.
I am sure that our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves due to the corruption of our values.
You've neglected to give any example to support your assertion.
As I look at the Framers and Vattel, it's very clear the Framers rejected many positions advocated by Vattel. For example:
§ 114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.
I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds –” that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.
Vattel is at odds with our Constitution's First Amendment protections of speech.
And:
§ 127. Of religion internal and external.
Religion consists in the doctrines concerning the Deity and the things of another life, and in the worship appointed to the honour of the Supreme Being. So far as it is seated in the heart, if is an affair of conscience, in which every one ought to be directed by his own understanding: but so far as it is external, and publicly established, it is an affair of state.
§ 129. Public establishment of religion. But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. § 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, –” to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.
Vattel advocated that the State had jurisdiction over public expression of religious belief and even advocated there be a state religion. The Framers rejected both notions.
And:
§ 176. Means of putting a stop to this disorder.
* * *Since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only
Vattel advocated against a general right of all persons to bear arms. The Framers rejected Vattel here.
There are many more examples like these, which make it very difficult to sustain the argument the Framers paid much deference to Vattel.
Since the Framers rejected Vattel's ideas on many matters, why should it be supposed they incorporated his ideas on citizenship? The notion fails for want of evidence.
Some people have the idea that when you become a naturalized US citizen, you renounce any other citizenship you have - that is incorrect. While you do need to take an oath of allegiance to the US, and renounce all foreign 'allegiances', they do not require you to renounce an citizenship(s) you currently have.There is a subtle, key distinction at play here. Say a young British man moves to the USA and naturalizes to become an American after age eighteen. Shortly thereafter something like the Falkland Islands war breaks out and Britain starts impressing its young men into military service. Our young man then spends his two week vacation visiting his still British parents in England and is promptly issued a draft notice while on English soil. This is case number one.
Now consider another young man of the same age who also was born in England, but in this case his mother was American and divorced his British father to permanently move back to the USA with her infant son in tow. Young man number two is at birth a citizen of the USA, but he never formally renounces his equally strong (or stronger) British allegiance, so the USA recognizes that his British citizenship may legally apply while he is on British soil. Through his father's family connections, young man number two seeks out and finds work in England, moving there for an indefinite stay (but taking no official steps to change his citizenship status). Then the aforementioned war breaks out and he also is issued a draft notice for British military service.
From the U.S. government point of view, young man number one, who formally naturalized as an American, has sole allegiance to the USA, whereas young man number two does not. I contend that we, as a country, would consider the first young man, if forcibly impressed into the British military, to have been kidnapped and do everything within our power to get him back. For the second young man ... not so much. The best we would do is tell him that if he could somehow get his dual citizen derriere back on U.S. soil, we would consider him no longer under British jurisdiction and then protect him as one of our own (but only while on our own soil).
Any U.S. citizen for whom the the USA officially recognizes dual or multiple split allegiances is not considered to be a natural born Citizen. And once lost, natural born Citizenship status can never be regained.
If that were so then if a foreign national happened to give birth on a U.S. military base wouldn't that child be a citizen under the 14th Amendment? I don't think that's the case.
Did Vattel’s positions on those matters disagree with the British positions? I don’t think so.
That's not true. The English Bill of Rights of 1689:
"...subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."
Vattel:
"Since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only."
Which one of those sounds more like the Founders' opinion?
I don’t feed obots.
CpnHook == PatGund of Fogbow == Patrick McKinnion
Right. That person was termed a "natural born athlete" irrespective of whether his parents (or either of them) were good athletes. He was just considered an "athlete at birth."
That's how the English language works. Accordingly, when someone is termed a "natural born citizen" it signifies the person was a citizen at birth, irrespective of whether the person's parents were citizens. And this is how one of America's earliest Constitutional scholars stated it:
“Therefore 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
--- William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution.”(1829)
And, as noted earlier, the English common law term "natural born subject" indicated a person born on the soil was a subject at birth, whether or not the person's parents were subjects or aliens.
That's how language works.
A simple way to understand who is a natural born Citizen, is to strip away every piece of man made law, the Constitution, every act passed by Congress, or a State, and if someone would still be a Citizen, then they are a Citizen without the help or assistance of positive law, and therefore a Citizen through natural law, or a natural born Citizen.
So take the case of a person born to a father who is a naturalized citizen. If you "strip away" all influence of positive law, is that child still a natural born citizen? It seems (under your theory) that such is a natural born citizen only by virtue of the "help" of the antecedent application of positive law making his father a citizen.
Or are you saying that a person is a "natural born citizen" only if both parents were in turn natural born citizens (thus removing -- at least one generation back -- any taint of "positive law)?
Though eventually positive law is going to enter the picture as one keeps moving back in time.
Your theory here is internally incoherent.
CpnHook is a fogbow / obot.
That's a convenient reply to pull out whenever your argument gets skewered, isn't it?
CpnHook == PatGund of Fogbow == Patrick McKinnion
You're behind the times. I've already been outed as David Axelrod.
I am just joking!! If Obama can be prez than anybody can!! By the way I would vote for Ted in a heart beat.. He is our best hope!!!
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.