Rick Sanchez: Ted Cruz is not a natural born American, and neither am I

Fox News latino ^ | January 12, 2016 | Rick Sanchez

[RC one]

eggs zactly!!!

[Bidimus1]

But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

Blackstones commitaries

[SmokingJoe]

The Trumpbots have this unbelievable ability to quote from the most hilarious sources possible.

Rick Sanchez eh? Formerly of CNN?
Let me see....

EPIC MEDIA FAIL: CNN’s Rick Sanchez places Hawaii off the coast of South America
By POPEYE
(RAW STORY) CNN host Rick Sanchez may have been trying to overdramatize yesterday’s earthquake in Chile by placing Hawaii off the coast of Ecuador for his more geographically-challenged viewers.

-———————snip——————

And this is Hawaii,” he said, pointing to the Galapagos Islandssome 500 miles off the coast of Ecuador. The actual Hawaiian islands are another 4,000 miles northwest of where Sanchez indicated.

The Galapagos being much closer to Chile than Hawaii, it may have been an attempt to overestimate the danger and keep his viewers tuned in.

But, in another segment of yesterday’s coverage, the news host asked a tsunami expert to explain how much “nine meters” is.

“Nine meters in English is what?” Sanchez asked.

“We just ran the phrase through Google translator, and apparently ‘nine meters�€™ in English roughly translates to ‘nine meters,’” quips Kyle Munzenrieder at Miami New Times.

www.federaljack.com/epic-media-fail-cnns-rick-sanchez

[SubMareener]

Here is Ted Cruz certificate of birth. It says he was born a Canadian, not an American.

[cynwoody]

It seems practical for a U.S. law -- or even an amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- to be drafted in a way that contains some kind of clarification for presidential eligibility.

The well-intended provision has clearly outlived its usefulness. It might have prevented a President Maximilian I. But it didn't prevent a President named Hussein (can you get any more foreign than that? Islam has been at war with the US since the days of the Barbary Pirates)! Even the strictest construction of it would not have prevented, say, a President Billy Ayers.

If you can't depend on the judgment of the voters, what's the use?

The Founders failed to define NBC. So, now, the provision is just an excuse for any random whack job to invent his own theory of what NBC means and play politics and concern-troll (get a declaratory judgement) with it.

[RC one]

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established..

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.

[eccentric]

When did Ted Cruz permanently move to the USA?

[Alberta's Child]

I don’t really care about a “strong argument” in this case. I’m talking about the black-and-white standard that you used in your initial post regarding “soil before blood.”

[Alberta's Child]

Where does it say he’s Canadian? It says he was born in Calgary, Alberta. The information on that certificate suggests that he might qualify as a citizen of three different countries.

[RC one]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking by Mr. Justice (afterwards Chief Justice) Sewall, early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was "to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law," and that it was established, with few exceptions, that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term "citizenship."

The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.

Cited By Justice Gray in the decision of US v. Wong Kim Ark:

Where was Ted Cruz born again?

[Bidimus1]

I realized most people are not court Watchers, but the US Supreme Court routinely uses the first Congress at its most appropriate form of understanding the words and meaning of the Constitution. The laws 1790 being the first law written by the first Congress clearly states that those children born to US citizens over the seas or not within the boundaries of the United States are citizens of natural birth. I also find it rather humorous that most of the people here will rail against the judicial overreach of the court but will happily use the arc case to override the obvious intent of the founders even though the arc case does not repudiate the definition of natural born citizen it only uses the interpretation of citizen within the 14th amendment since there is no third form of citizenship other than naturalized and not naturalized. Those people who make this argument happily and willfully attempt to subvert the meaning of the wording of the Constitution and all naturalization laws promulgated in its intent since.

[Alberta's Child]

I wonder how useful that provision ever was in the first place. The Constitution was written at a time when there was no internet, no hospitals, and no birth certificates like we know them today.

If some dude was born in Canada and moved to one of the New England states as a kid, who would ever know where the hell he was born? LOL.

[cynwoody]

Where is that rule stated in any legal code applicable to the United States?

It isn't.

But neither are any of the less-obvious rules.

So, pending a Constitutional Amendment (two thirds of Congress and three quarters of the states), I will stick with the obvious interpretation.

Under the common-sense interpretation, Senator Cruz rules, and the birfers droolz!

[RC one]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking by Mr. Justice (afterwards Chief Justice) Sewall, early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was "to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law," and that it was established, with few exceptions, that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term "citizenship."

The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.

Cited By Justice Gray in the decision of US v. Wong Kim Ark:

It seemed easier to just repost this.

[SubMareener]

Because it’s a Canadian Birth Certificate?

[Alberta's Child]

By that standard, eight of the first nine Presidents of the United States (all except Martin Van Buren) were ineligible to serve as President because they were not born in the U.S.

[RC one]

The rules have been posted repeatedly throughout this thread and call be traced back to the Uniyted States v. Wong Kim Ark ruling. The actual rules are right there. what you choose to "stick to" is entirely your business but if you share your fantasy beliefs with me, I will set you straight.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking by Mr. Justice (afterwards Chief Justice) Sewall, early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was "to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law," and that it was established, with few exceptions, that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term "citizenship."

[Cboldt]

-- In American law and in the common law, citizenship is determined by soil before blood and that's the dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about. --

Oh, it's being talked about. Katyal, Clement, the popular "legal celebrity" press, Amar, Balkin, Napolitano ... etc. all talk about it.

And all assert, many with great certainty, that Cruz is NBC.

The public is being deliberately misled. It's the constitutional version of global warming.

[Alberta's Child]

That means he was born in Canada. A birth certificate doesn’t necessarily mean a person is a citizen of the country where they were born.

[RC one]

Go read article II, section I, clause 5 again. They were citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution. I literally did a face palm when I read that comment btw.