Brilliant minds think alike. :-)
I have made this same point over and over since the discussions began here on Free Republic.
The burden of proof of ineligibility lies on those asserting it. The evidence must be clear and convincing and if the case were even given a hearing in court, then all reasonable doubt would be given to Ted Cruz.
Hence, there is not a snowball's chance in Hell that any court will determine that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, or as Mr. Jacobson noted "natural born Citizen" with the capitals only on the term Citizen.
So those who want to insist that Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen will have to be their own judge and jury on the subject.
If denying Ted Cruz his rightful inheritance as a natural born Citizen is more important than saving the country from Tryanny, then vote for someone else. Vote For the GOP-E candidate. Vote for Hillary. But don't use Free Republic as your forum to infect the unwary with your insane notions that Ted Cruz is not a NBC. He is. Get over it!
Everyone.... Read this article!
You would destroy the village in order to save it? One cannot 'save the country from tyranny' by violating the Constitution whose strict observance is the only mechanism that prevents tyranny. That's a logical contradiction, and logical contradictions are absolute falsifications.
Thank you, PM.
Very good article. I didn’t notice in the article reference to the actual congressional debate over the 1790 Naturalization Act that used the “natural born citizen” formula.
I sent that info to Prof Jacobson with the suggestion that watching them actually use Blackstone and English law in the debate lends weight to the parallel between “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject”, the former being an update for a new, non-monarchical government.
I have read the article and I have considered the source.
I have no position on the eligibility of Senator Cruz, I have not looked into his birth in any manner, thus I have no opinion. IMO it is a waste of my time as the law will not be the decider of the issue. I believe arguments can and have been made on both sides and that the USSC is the decider of the issue. I believe Obamacare is unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court was compromised and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
I also believe the US Government has been corrupted, compromised and taken over by a shadow government that controls the President, Congress, the Supreme Court and most of the news media. Voting also looks like it has been corrupted with fraud.
I believe any decision as to Cruz’s eligibility will be rendered by the shadow government no matter what the law and Constitution says. If not so Obama would never have gotten elected once much less twice in this Nation without being properly vetted and his incompetence covered up.
We are no longer a nation of laws, but with a few exceptions a nation run by corrupted greedy self serving men and women. May God save America, it is beyond my ability to help. If I was younger and healthier I might have a different opinion but right now that’s how I see it.
Great find, Lakeshark, and thanks for the ping P-Marlowe!
One thing I don’t understand though. It says in the article:
“term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, in the writings or history of those who framed the Constitution, or in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time the Constitution was drafted. ..”
Why does William Jacobson include in his article that it is not defined “IN THE WRITINGS” when our Framers made their intent clear:
“Naturalization Act of 1790:
“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:”
:-)
Here's what you said:
The burden of proof of ineligibility lies on those asserting it. The evidence must be clear and convincing and if the case were even given a hearing in court, then all reasonable doubt would be given to Ted Cruz. Hence, there is not a snowball's chance in Hell that any court will determine that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, or as Mr. Jacobson noted "natural born Citizen" with the capitals only on the term Citizen.
My yesterday assertion (which happens to be the Breitbart editors point of view) that the dems have telegraphed their intent to use this issue, litigate it, and push it to the courts to the max doesn't contradict anything from the common sense the author of the article brought to light.
On the contrary, as we learned with gay rights and Obamacare, common sense doesn't apply to liberals and their wins in the courts.