I agree. I predict Jeff's references to Bayard will now drop to zero. Then again, he is a stupid @$$ and it may take awhile before the message reaches his tiny little dinosaur brain that he has been stabbed in his big ole dinosaur heart.
Posted on 08/14/2013 5:45:12 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news4jax.com ...
Calgary, Alberta is a lot closer to Red America than Hawaii.
There will at least be a serious debate about whether Cruz is eligible. Most Democrats dont care whether or not Obama is natural born.
It makes you a treasure. :)
Birther logic has gotten so convoluted that I've actually read it argued here that an adopted child could never run for President because it would be impossible to ascertain if his biological parents were citizens or not. Just ridiculous.
I'm all for Ted Cruz. I think he's eligible. Furthermore, birthers can stomp their feet all they want but I'm confident should Senator Cruz toss his hat into the ring, he'll face no serious legal obsticals regarding his eligibility.
Your post is not true. Cruz’s father Rafael did not become a citizen of the United States until he naturalized in 2005. Cruz has admitted he is a U.S. Citizen. He has not admitted he is a natural born Citizen that Article 2 Section 1 call for to be president. He is not Constitutionally eligible.
Those words from James Bayard need to be saved for future references when replying to Jeff’s deceptive posts. Mama Texan has given the most epic rebuttal ever to confirm Jeff Winton is a lying deceitful Fogbow/Dr.Conspiracy Obama proponent. I wish this forum had a rep button.
I agree. I predict Jeff's references to Bayard will now drop to zero. Then again, he is a stupid @$$ and it may take awhile before the message reaches his tiny little dinosaur brain that he has been stabbed in his big ole dinosaur heart.
What is this ‘Natural Born AMERICAN’ meaning and what/how does it have relevance to ‘Natural Born Citizen’? Does it imply that any such person in the Americas is eligible for POTUSA?
I'm afraid you don't know how to do an advanced search on Google's vast store of books. It is different from a regular Google search. Perhaps you should learn about it.
Gee, I wonder why all those lead to YOUR POSTS ON FR, Jeff? I wonder why this quote can't be found ANYWHERE else on the net.
Would you like to know what a LEGITMATE quote from Bayard looks like, Jeff?
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.' A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183
Anyone who twists the facts and truncates quotes in order to support a false argument has nothing to say that would interest me at all.
Sigh.
The Bayard you quote was THOMAS F. BAYARD.
THOMAS Bayard was the SON of JAMES ASHETON BAYARD, JR. (who, quite confusingly, was really James Asheton Bayard III, but still went by "Junior.").
The doctrine of THOMAS Bayard, as US Secretary of State in the LATE 1800S, was that Richard Griesser, born in Ohio to a German father who was DOMICILED IN GERMANY, was not a US citizen.
That's not an unreasonable doctrine. It is an ANTI-BIRTH-TOURISM doctrine.
In any event, THOMAS Bayard wrote those words in 1887, an entire century after the Constitution was ratified.
THOMAS Bayard's opinion has some validity to it. Why should the son of a German father who was here ONLY TEMPORARILY, who DID NOT STAY HERE, who DID NOT MAKE HIS HOME IN THE UNITED STATES, be a United States citizen?
On the other hand, if Griesser had been DOMICILED here (like the parents of Wong Kim Ark) then his child born here would have been a natural born citizen.
But the Bayard that I was referring to is James Asheton Bayard, Jr., the author of A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, way back in 1833.
FIFTY-FOUR YEARS EARLIER.
And here is the link, to the 1840 edition of Bayard's book.
More than the link, here are images of the relevant pages.
Now you owe me a great big huge apology for falsely accusing me of "twisting facts," deliberately "truncating quotes," and making a "false argument."
I have no position on the eligibility issue but the personal attacks on Jeff are beyond the pale. Those personal attacks reflect on those who brought them, not on Jeff.
I 'owe' you nothing, particularly since the 'source' isn't even the Secretary of State that I thought he was. He was just a Senator...like Jacob Howard. You know, the one that co authored the 14th Amendment
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
-----
The doctrine of THOMAS Bayard, as US Secretary of State in the LATE 1800S, was that Richard Griesser, born in Ohio to a German father who was DOMICILED IN GERMANY, was not a US citizen. That's not an unreasonable doctrine. It is an ANTI-BIRTH-TOURISM doctrine.
So a German father domiciled in Germany is an 'ANTI-BIRTH-TOURISM doctrine', but a Cuban father domiciled in Canada can make someone a 'natural born citizen'?
Allrightythen!
------
I've given a Secretary of State saying someone born in the united States to a foreign father IS a foreigner, yet you continue to tap dance around - failing to refute the pertinent aspects of the assertions..... and have the audacity to act as if I'm the one with the comprehension problem? LOL! How pathetic.
With all due respect, you might want to look up some of Jeff's past posts to see what we've been on the receiving end of before you start demanding apologies.
We may seen rude to you, but this isn't our first rodeo with this clown.
Appologize? I'll exacerbate! Jeff is a vile snake that has been working very hard to mislead people on this issue for a very long time. He deliberately and dishonestly cuts off quotes to change their meaning, He claims people support him when a clear reading of their writings demonstrate that this is absolutely untrue, yet no matter how many times you show Jeff that you have caught him lying, when he thinks no one is paying attention, he does it again and again and again.
He claims everyone from Jesus to Satan and the Entire Heavenly Host agrees with him, and he denies or maligns the existence of any authority which demonstrably does not. He deliberately "interprets" statements from past historical figures into a meaning that cannot be honestly derived from what they said. He is dishonest in every sense of the word, and it is utterly pointless to attempt to reason with him.
I have no position on the eligibility issue but the personal attacks on Jeff are beyond the pale. Those personal attacks reflect on those who brought them, not on Jeff.
I and others have long History with Jeff. Jeff deserves every bit of the vituperation he receives. He is deliberately, and calculatingly dishonest. Even with himself.
NOTHING you responded with supports your position. This is just your latest attempt to deceive people into believing you've "proven" something.
I've read what you've had to say far too many times. You ALWAYS claim that you PROVED something when you didn't. You are the master of the non sequitur, the ad nauseum, and the false equivalency.
You conflate birth on soil to "born a citizen" and you conflate "born a citizen" to "natural born citizen." You incrementally slither from one dubious conclusion to the next and then declare the beginning and the ending to be exactly alike.
Now it has been demonstrated to you that a person born on American soil does not automatically become a citizen, that the person's FATHER is the determining factor, and what do you do? You attempt to pretend that this is an irrelevant point when it is the VERY HEART OF THE ISSUE.
The quote from Thomas F Bayard demonstrates that your claim is FALSE. Birth on the soil does NOT EQUAL citizenship, yet you are going to continue making this claim, and you are going to continue asserting that "ALL AUTHORITIES SUPPORT ME!" Even though this has been clearly disproved so many times it's no longer funny.
You don't need an apology, you need mental help.
Thomas F Bayard WAS a Secretary of State.
U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Francis Bayard points a rifle towards his successor, James Gillespie Blaine, who is climbing over the fence of "neutrality." During this time, Germany was expanding into Samoa, and the United States was trying to counter this expansion.
Term of office March 7, 1885--- March 6, 1889.
LOL! Thanks again for the info!
I guess some background with a direct and viable third-party source when the assertion was made would have been too much to ask!
/s
My personal favorite:
'Subject, or citizen' is two ways to say the same thing, but 'native, or natural born' always means two separate things.
Huh?
I went to school when they still taught grammer... you know.... 'the fuctions of conjuctions' ties two things together.
If Bayard's claim were true the First Congress would never have passed the 1790 Act.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 (emphasis added)The 1790 Act was repealed by the 1795 ActBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Naturalization Act 1795 (emphasis added)Sec 3
And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States
Surely the Father of the Constitution James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Nicholas Gilman, William Samuel Johnson, Richard Bassett, George Read, William Few, John Langdon, William Paterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris, Pierce Butler, and President George Washington knew what they were doing when they passed the 1790 Act.
Maybe they had a big party and all got roaring drunk. In the House, AND in the Senate, and in the White House with President Washington. And maybe someone said, "Hey! I know what. Lissen t' thish. Lesh all pass some stupid-ash bill where we don't know wha' the 'ell we're talkin' 'bout."
How about this: President George Washington, and Father of the Constitution James Madison, and all together 40% of the men who signed the Constitution knew exactly what they were talking about when they passed that Act.
Bayard is incorrect.
What exactly did they approve? From the book's "Advertisement":
...their approbation of the plan of the work, and the manner of its execution; and express their opinion that it is well calculated for the attainment of the object for which it was intended.What is the plan of the work? What is the "object for which it was intended"?
To answer those questions turn to the Preface.
What is "the plan of the work"
And indeed the book does closely follow the arrangement of the Constitution
| Chapter | Title | Constitution |
| I | The Preamble | Preamble |
| II | The Legislature | Art. I |
| III | Of The House of Representatives | Art. I § 2 |
| IV | The Senate | Art. I § 3 |
| V | The Powers of Congress | Art. I § 8 |
| VI | Limitations of the Powers of Congress | Art. I § 9 |
| VII | Limitations of the Powers of the Individual States | Art. I § 10 |
| VIII | The Executive | Art. II |
| IX | The Powers and Duties of the Executive | Art. II § 2 |
| X | The Judiciary | Art. III |
| XI | Miscellaneous Subjects | Art. IV, VI |
| XII | The Amendments | Amend. I - X |
What is the "object for which it was intended"?
The book's object is to be a short and simple exposition for young persons so they may have "a more general acquaintance with the Constitution."
It is an overstatement to claim that Marshall, Story and Kent endorse the contents in their entirety. They are not co-authors or proofreaders and, with the exception of Marshall, there is nothing to indicate they read the book.
Marshall does appear to have read the book, although at what level of scrutinty we do not know. His health began declining in 1832 and he died in 1835. As his reading of the book was during his failing health his attention may not have been as focused as during his prime.
In any event, even if each of these gentleman closely scutinized the book it is not law, nor is it presented as an authoritative book useful for "professional men"
From the Preface:
In compiling it, the author has relied principally, upon the Federalist, the Commentaries of Chancellor Kent, the Treatises of Mr. Rawle, and Mr. Sergeant, and the Reports of the Decisions of the Supreme Court.Neither the Federalist nor the Supreme Court define "natural born citizen", Rawle has been previously discussed here as has Kent. I am not familiar with Sergeant (presumably Nathaniel Sargeant of the Massachusetts Supreme Court). Bayard offers "natural born citizen" without any citing any authority, it is his opinion and it is an obvious factual error.
The main point is that it is an overstatement to claim that Marshall, Story and Kent endorse the contents in their entirety. Rather, they lauded the plan and object of the book.
The distinguishing characteristic was parental US citizenship.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be “citizen”.
Are we to conclude that subsequent to 1795 there were no further “natural born citizens”?
Are we to conclude that other children born with parental US citizenship - those who were not “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States”, those born within the United States - are “natural born citizens”?
Or are these other children born with parental US citizenship within the United States something other than “natural born citizens”? Why? Was it necessary that they be “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” to be “natural born citizens”?
Who are the post 1795 natural born citizens?
The reasonable conclusion is that those born within the United States with parental US citizenship are “natural born citizens”.
II. To attempt to overcome Bayard's lack of credibility on this point you overstate the comments of Marshall, Story and Kent.
III. The First Congress, many members of which were Framers, tell us who is a "natural born citizen"
What it means is that I am more than satisfied that Ted Cruz is a Natural Born citizen and that if he is determined to be ineligible after he is elected, then Vice President Sarah Palin can take over the reins and appoint Ted Cruz to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, December 22, 1970, to a US citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father.
Relevant law in December 1970 is Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7) (66 Stat. 163, 236)
What’s your point?
If Cruz runs are you going to sit out the election?
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.