Chin: Ted Cruz can be president, probably

News4Jax.com ^ | Published On: Aug 13 2013 05:59:22 PM EDT | By Gabriel "Jack" Chin Special to CNN

[Perdogg]

The Constitution says that only "natural born citizens" are eligible to be president. Is Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas eligible, given that he was born in Canada of a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father?

If Cruz runs, 2016 will be the third consecutive election in which there were questions about the right of a major party candidate to serve. Unfortunately, the Framers left few clues about exactly what a "natural born citizen" is; Congress has not used the phrase in citizenship statutes since 1790.

[MamaTexan]

In fact, it was Tucker's annotated version of BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND.

That's right. Of which one section was titled

Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States

Tucker's Blackstone was annotated specifically FOR the United States, and that's about as 'comprehensive' as it gets.

----

Besides, I've already shown you where DANE HIMSELF SAID native born citizenship took precedence over any other acquired after.

The fact is you want to apply the multiple citizenship after adulthood that Dane spoke about to YOUR 'a child can be a dual citizenship at birth and still be natural born' argument.

Which is nothing more than a big, steaming pile of meadow muffins according to your own source.

[MamaTexan]

'a child can be a dual citizenship at birth and still be natural born' argument.

[MamaTexan]

But when it comes to citizenship, which involves a matter of domestic, rather than international, law, does the Court reach for its copy of Vattel? No!!They reach for Blackstone, et al.

Um, no.

They reach for Tucker.

St. George Tucker, Northwestern University Law Review Largely forgotten today, Tucker returned to some legal prominence last Term, when the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller cited his annotated Blackstone’s Commentaries as proof that the Second Amendment had originally been understood as an individual right to arms.

[Jeff Winston]

"Beginning with Zephaniah Swift's System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (1795) and continuing with St. George Tucker's Blackstone (1803), American commentators composed a large body of commentary on American law that compared favorably with anything English. Kent's Commentaries on American Law (1826-1830) achieved such authoritative stature that its author was sometimes referred to as "the American Blackstone." Nathan Dane compiled his General Abridgement and Digest of American Law in nine volumes, published in 1823. "Dane's Abridgement," as it was called, was the first systematic treatise covering the entire field of American law."

- William M. Wiecek, Congdon Professor of Public Law, Syracuse University; The Lost World of Classical Legal Thought : Law and Ideology in America, 1886-1937

Your accusations are just another form of attacking the messenger, just another ad hominem attack.

[MamaTexan]

Your accusations are just another form of attacking the messenger, just another ad hominem attack.

LOL! Yeah, cuz you're such a reliable source of information.

Nice quote. No online source......AGAIN.

---

And you didn't bother addressing the fact that I've mentioned TWICE now.

Your quote by Dane, when it's read in its entirety, does not support your assertion that dual citizenship existed in the case of the Founders.

[Jeff Winston]

Your quote by Dane, when it's read in its entirety, does not support your assertion that dual citizenship existed in the case of the Founders.

Of course it does. Dane said clearly that if Thomas Jefferson went to France, he could take his place as a French citizen. You're insane.

[Brown Deer]

coppied from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3056700/replies?c=83

Having significant familiarity with the authorities, background, and history of the Natural Born Clause in Article II, Sec. 1, as well as with the views of the Constitutional Law Bar on the question, I can tell you what the consensus is about the current state of the law.

It is generally believed that the Supreme Court would rule that any person born in the United States would be treated as Natural Born; any person not born in the United States would be treated as not Natural Born, no matter what their citizenship status was as a result of birth.

The parent and grandparent citizenship status questions are not viewed as affecting the outcome.

And that is a generally reliable forecast of the Supreme Court outcome by lawyers who practice before the Court on a regular basis.

All that said, the Court is increasingly drifting in the direction of political resolution of this kind of issue and even though the lawyers are in general agreement about what the law is, there is no conclusive precedent that controls and it would not be surprisng to find the Court on a decision that upheld eligibility even for someone born outside the US.

Personally, I strongly support Cruz—I think he would make the most effective candidate.

But, on the current state of the law, I am of the legal opinion that he is not eligible. To date, I have not seen anything that conclusively demonstrates that he was even born a citizen of the United States.

His mother was a citizen? Sure. But the child of a US Citizen mother and non Citizen father born outside the US is a US Citizen at birth only if the mother meets very specific tests set out in the Citizenship statutes.

In order to know whether Cruz passes, you need to know his birth date; his mother’s birth date; the period in which her primary residence was in the geographical limits of the US.

The statutory requirements were amended from time to time with amendments being effective with respect to children born after a specified date.

Further, the consensus of the Constitutional Bar is that the Mother Citizenship statute is not constitutional because there is no equal provision for a Father Citizenship.

Finally, I am concerned that what will happen is that the media will lead Conservatives down the path of support for Cruz until other Conservative candidates are out; then the media will discover that he is not eligible and will send the Republican’s off to nominate Bush or Christie; leaving us with a choice of the Liberal Democrat or a Liberal Republican.

What should be done is to force an effort to identify the place of birth of the present occupant of the White House and use his ineligibility as leverage to get a statutory resolution validating Cruz. That needs to be done now while there is still leverage which will disappear at the end of the current term.

83 posted on 08/23/2013 1:39:31 PM PDT by David

[Brown Deer]

copied from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3056700/posts?page=89#89

The fact that his citizenship was based on (Congressional) statutory requirements is in itself a demonstration that he is not a ‘natural Citizen’. A requirement of Article II, Section 1.
Any dependency on any law passed by Congress is a form of Naturalization. And a citizen’s source of citizenship must be natural or naturalized - but not both.

Citizenship based on statutes passed by Congress = naturalization. A naturalized citizen is not a natural Citizen and is thus obviously not a natural born Citizen.

We seem to be making this much harder than it needs to be - maybe by design....

You are technically correct.

The people making the pro eligibility argument tend to base their position on Citizenship at Birth under the Citizenship statutes. But, as you say, that really wouldn't count under the Natural Born requirement.

In Bari's case (the guy who presently lives in the White House); if the issue was birth in Kenya, which I believe it is not, if his mother was Stanley Ann, which I believe she was not; he would still lose the argument because she couldn't pass citizenship for the reason that she was too young at birth to have lived in the US for five years after age 14.

Unlike most lawyers, although I view myself as a hired gun first; I am also interested in the result from a personal objective perspective.

If, for example, I were retained on behalf of Cruz, I might be thinking about a Constitutional Amendment that validated his position--maybe a provision that said something like Citizen at birth under the citizenship statutes with at least two grandparents who were US Citizens at birth who were born in the US. Maybe I would add other qualifications.

I say that on the assumption (because all the facts necessary to reach a legal conclusion as to the actual condition are not on the record) that under the statute as in effect at Cruz's birth, his mother qualified to pass US Citizenship to a child born outside the US with a non-US Father. If not, I would think about other alternatives.

I would then add a provision to the Citizenship statute that retroactively made children born to a US Father and a non-citizen mother citizens at birth as long as the Father's paternity were established conclusively under regulations promulgated by the Secretary (DNA) on the same basis on which a child born to a US Citizen Mother would become a citizen at birth.

I might also add qualifications to the citizenship provision.

I would consider the merits of doing that on the basis that such an amendment would on the true facts of Bari's parentage validate his eligibility as a trade for the validation of Cruz.

You would get there by using Bari's vulnerability as leverage. That leverage is out there and effective for only a couple of years so if that were the objective to be pursued on behalf of Cruz, someone should start finishing the work on Bari's historical parentage and place of birth.

89 posted on Saturday, August 24, 2013 9:11:08 PM by David

[WhiskeyX]

So long as the natural born citizen clause is not repealed from the Constitution, the change in statutes will have no effect upon the status or lack of status as a natural born citizen. The instant a manmade statute is involved to determine the person’s citizenship status at birth, the citizenship at birth is determined by datus and not the natus required by the Constitution or the many pre-American jurisdictions The “natural” part of the “natural born citizen” clause requires there to be no intervention by manmade statutory law or manmade common-law to establish the citizenship.

[MamaTexan]

Of course it does. Dane said clearly that if Thomas Jefferson went to France, he could take his place as a French citizen.

LOL! And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he jumped.

------

The definition of 'dual':

du·al (dl, dy-)
adj.
1. Composed of two usually like or complementary parts;

***

Did he have more-than-one-citizenship-at-a-time?
Yes.

Did he have an original/adopted citizenship?
Yes

Did he have a primary/secondary citizenship?
Yes.

-----

But this is NOT a 'dual' citizenship, because if it were, one type would not have the ability to cancel the other one OUT as your source itself said it could.

-------

You're insane.

OH! The personal barb! It burns! It stings!

Oh, wait....no it doesn't.

Sorry, Jeff. I have to actually RESPECT someone before I give a crap about their opinion of me.

[MamaTexan]

Link to definition dual

[MamaTexan]

Further, the consensus of the Constitutional Bar is that the Mother Citizenship statute is not constitutional because there is no equal provision for a Father Citizenship.

That's a great piece. Thanks for the link!

Some of us realize that if it takes any action by government to 'make' you a citizen, you are not natural born.

But the fact the Constitution as written considered both sexes 'persons', but only men had 'citizenship' as it pertained to natural-born children does raise some interesting questions in the realm of positive law.

-----

This part particularly.

Further, the consensus of the Constitutional Bar is that the Mother Citizenship statute is not constitutional because there is no equal provision for a Father Citizenship.

There comes a point in any law where you have to choose one or the other, so either you inherent citizenship from both parents equally, or one MUST override the other.

It USED to be the fathers' citizenship that took precedence.....that's why bastardy was so shameful.

Now that government has decided 'equality' trumps natural law, it's tripping over it's own legalistic feet.

[WhiskeyX]

I didn’t quote Dane on “honorary citizenship.” I quoted Dane saying that Thomas Jefferson’s citizenship would put him good to go as a citizen of France, if he ever chose to go and live there.”

Yes, you faqlsely claimed Thomas Jefferson was a dual citizen with French citizenship because of what Dane purportedly had to say in a 1808 newspaper article the newspaper acknowledged was wrong and a falsehood. Knowing full well the claim was acknowledgeed by the publisher to be false, you nonetheless repeated the falsehood. That misconduct is the definition of a lie and a liar.

You also accused George Washington and James Madison of also having French citizenship that should have disqualified them from being natural born citizens or made them dual citizens of the United States and France. Both f such conclusions are again falsehoods. Honorary citizenship is not citizenship and does not include any of the obligations to a French sovereign that French citizenship has in conflict with U.S. citizenship. Accordingly, George Washington and AJames Madison owed no obkligations of allegiance to a French sovereign, and Thomas Jefferson was never an honorary French citizen or a French citizen. So, again you were being deceitful.

“I’ve already provided the quote, and a link to the source. You can search back through my history for it.”

The quote is irrelevant when the subject matter was a false and fictitious allegation in the first place, no matter what Dane did or did not say. The really pathetic aspect of your attempts to use Dane to perpetrate a lie is how Dane’s accusation had it been true and accurate would have demonstrated how Dane believed dual citizenship and the natural born citizen clause should have barred these presidents from office absent the clause making themselves exceptions to the requirements for eligibility. So, you are even being deceptive about Dane’s par tin this controversy. You are so twisted, you fail to keep track of your own twisted deceptions and lies.

[New Jersey Realist]

From now on, I'm going to regard you as the "Voice of Authority"

Gosh, do you actually listen to yourself? Obama himself can hide under your ego! Don't worry about hearing from me again - I wouldn't get within a mile of your insanity.

[Jeff Winston]

Your quote by Dane, when it's read in its entirety, does not support your assertion that dual citizenship existed in the case of the Founders.

Of course it does. It is straightforward and direct and unequivocal. You're delusional if you claim it doesn't.

[MamaTexan]

It is straightforward and direct and unequivocal.

Your assertion:

Dane said clearly that if Thomas Jefferson went to France, he could take his place as a French citizen.

The problem, Jeff. Is you always want to stop READING the material after you find what you want to. If you would bother FINISHING Dane's thought on the subject, you would see on page 714 he says that if there was a collision between the two and unless Jefferson renounced the Allegiance of his native country, his American citizenship would supersede the French one

---------

So as hard as you're trying to paint the illusion that these citizenships were 'equal' and that Jefferson would suddenly BE a French citizen should he move there, you're OWN SOURCE said if it came down too it.....

Jefferson would just be an American citizen living in France.

--------

You're delusional if you claim it doesn't.

ROFLMAO! Being called 'delusional' by someone who so obviously IS so is a compliment.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you know about matters like the Lutz study, then it's really inexplicable why after knowing such for so long your reply is so inept.

Responding to you wasn't worth any further effort.

[DiogenesLamp]

Gosh, do you actually listen to yourself? Obama himself can hide under your ego! Don't worry about hearing from me again - I wouldn't get within a mile of your insanity.

Good. Children should be seen but not heard.

[Jeff Winston]

So as hard as you're trying to paint the illusion that these citizenships were 'equal' and that Jefferson would suddenly BE a French citizen should he move there, you're OWN SOURCE said if it came down too it.....

Of course he would "BE" a French citizen if he should move there. Dane was very clear about that.

He wouldn't be SOLELY a French citizen. He would still have the United States' claim of citizenship on him.

THAT'S WHAT A DUAL CITIZEN IS.

And I read the entire rest of the chapter in Dane's book. I'll summarize it.

Dual citizens have more than one country claiming them as citizens. Whether a person who becomes naturalized by a second country loses his original citizenship, or whether he even CAN lose his original citizenship, is a matter of the laws of his original country.

That's it.

[Jeff Winston]

Certainly Blackstone is WAY up the list - being third - but there are also some interesting names that rank as being more influential on the Founders than Vattel. Like:

Cesare Beccaria
John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon
Delolme
Samuel Pufendorf
Sir Edward Coke
William Robertson
Hugo Grotius
Lord Bolingbroke
Richard Price
Abbe Guillaume Raynal
Abbe Gabriel Mably

All household names, surely.