I am talking relations with with Cuba?Originally Posted by SpiritOf1776_J4
You started out saying that I was pretentious for asking a question that turned out to be worth asking later in the thread. Then you later said I was a know it all about Cruz, and you knew more, but if you already know Cruz's father used to be a communist, you should have said so.
Turns out, that was the right question. The newspapers I read only said it was an unusual path, they didn't bother telling the reader why his father did that. Perhaps the reporters didn't know (yeah right).Quote Originally Posted by SpiritOf1776_J4 View Post
Perhaps that there was a reason that Ted Cruz's father didn't take the normal path of immigration at all - as several newspapers have said in those words? That Cruz's father prefers Canadian citizenship may be because he didn't really cut ties with communist cuba.
Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 04-07-2016 at 09:40 PM.
I did not know I chould hurt your feeling.
Obviously I'm not. I'm only interested in if Ted Cruz is eligible to be president on this thread, not if he is a good or bad candidate, or what Cuba is like.
At this point, a sub thread to the thread is "Is Cruz's father's unusual background why his documentation status is so messed up" - and it probably is.
There's a good reason that Ted Cruz's father didn't try to become a US citizen for so long. Probably because he couldn't have because he fought with Fidel Castro.
It also provides a reason Ted Cruz did not renounce his citizenship until 2014. Because the whole family didn't know when the father might have to pack up all of a sudden and move back to Canada. It is almost certainly untrue that Ted Cruz did not know he had Canadian citizenship as he said.
Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 04-07-2016 at 09:52 PM.
This is what happen when you apply your critical thinking skills, kids.
The Founders in general . . . and off the top of my head I think it was Madison that said specifically . . . Inhabitants are not Citizens
As well, the Founders in their writings and courts/INS hearings are careful in using "by birth" . . . and then "at birth" in naturalization statutes
" A person who is a national of the United States, whether by (emphasis added) birth, or, naturalization shall lose his . . .
It will be a bipartisan attack of Cruz' ineligibility for the Presidency . . .
it is shaping up to also be a bipartisan effort to unseat him from the Senate,
all will welcome international assistance to estop Rafael Sr. and Rafael Jr. from hindering release of their Canada records.
Eleanor's Canada records should be available to a US court without any Canadian right to authorize release needed . . .
she and probably Rafael Sr. have an FBI file - regardless of what side of the Cuban revolution he was on I'll presume -
nations have co-operative record-sharing for political asylum cases as much as might be possible.
She was "enumerated" for the Canada 1974 election . . . both Rafael Sr and Eleanor were in Canada then,
Rafael Sr. left soon after the election (?) without the wife and kid of course, Canada have a record definitively whether either actually voted (?)
as US law exists that "expatriates the citizen who votes in a foreign political election"
Last edited by Jan2017; 04-08-2016 at 08:25 AM.
The only way to sue for violation of the natural born clause is under the seventh amendment, which is specifically about suits under common law. There is no punishment provided for trying to violate the natural born clause in the Constitution, presumably only the validation of the election, impeachment and removal, and suits can do it - and only common law contains the legal definition of natural born - which is what I said it was. If I'm wrong - post links to common law citations from that time frame when the Constitution was signed that prove it is otherwise. That is really all I am interested in - how common law legally defined natural born at the time the constitution was written.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
That ought to force the Supreme Court to use the same legal sources in common law when it gets to them. In which case, Cruz will lose.
Note: to Zippy - the Constitution didn't have to define common law, it was assumed in the Constitution - as used here in example in the seventh amendment. That is where legal words and concepts not given were already defined and already in use in courts.
Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 04-08-2016 at 09:21 AM.
What natural born means has never been modified by statute since the constitution was made. Nor could it be, as modifying the Constitution only by a statute would be impossible. Whenever the Supreme Court gets this - the only laws it could look at for what natural born means is common law tradition stretching back before our country was founded..
In which case, Cruz would lose.
PS: if you're interested in how the individual states recognized the existence of common law as mentioned in the above article, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute
Both should give those interested an idea of how a suit involving the definition of natural born, only defined in common law when the constitution was written and assumed to be known, would precede.
Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 04-08-2016 at 11:04 AM.
This is the reception act of New York for common law:
Amending the full adoption of common law as allowed by a reception act in New York.
For example, the New York Constitution of 1777 provides that:
Notice New York considers the (reception) of the pre-existing common law as dating to April 19th, 1775 - the start of the American War for Independence, also called the Shot Heard Round the World. You might also notice it's New York's primary day this year - aka patriot day.[S]uch parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.
This reception act allows amendment of it's full recognition of common law by statute. The Constitution however, only allows amendment by passage by three fourths of the States or constitutional convention - Article V.
Note: states continued to create reception acts for common law long after the original 13 colonies of the American Revolution. It was the pre-existing, recognized law, and like language, was assumed to exist already.
Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 04-08-2016 at 10:36 AM.
Interesting take, Danke. Regarding a look at prior law I'll excerpt from Blackstone....http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...aturalBorn.php
Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States; The meaning of "Natural Born."
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." -- Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, clause 5
Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for President of the United States. He was born in Canada...
...Ted Cruz's supporters try to get around "Natural Born" by claiming it simply means any US citizen, an opinion even echoed at Wikipedia!
But if any US citizen could be President, then the qualifier "Natural Born" would not be needed (and is not present in the Constitutional citizenship requirements for Representatives and Senators). Clearly, to the Founding Fathers, "Natural Born" had a specific and obvious meaning, applied exclusively to the Presidency!
The Founding Fathers did not need to define what "Natural Born" meant inside the Constitution as it had been defined in existing legal theory in works such as "The Law of Nations" by Emerich de Vattel, published in 1758 and relied on heavily by the framers of the Constitution. "Natural Born" was already legally defined when the Constitution was written as "born inside the nation."
Vattel's definition of a natural born citizen: Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at § 212:
§ 212: The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The requirement that parents be citizens also means Marco Rubio is not eligable, because while born in Miami, his parents were both citizens of Cuba, not the United States.
"...I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel..." -- Ben Franklin, in a letter to Charles William Fredric Dumas, confirming that Vattel's "Law of Nations" is the legal source used for the Constitution.
The inclusion of the "Natural Born" requirement for the US Presidency was proposed at the Constitutional Convention by Chief Justice John Jay, who wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen..."
The intention is clear that the Presidency not be open to anyone not born within the United States.
In addition, there are no less than four United States Supreme Court Decisions that reaffirm that "Natural Born" means "Born inside the nation."
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
There has never been a United States Supreme Court Decision that ruled "Natural Born" as having any other meaning than "born inside the country."
All of Cruz's supporters, including the corporate media, are demonstrating either an ignorance of the US Constitution, or an utter disregard for it. This tells us that were Cruz to become President, he would continue the long and tragic tradition of recent Presidents to ignore the Constitution to the detriment of the people.
The Constitution is the original contract with America. It is the rules by which We The People allow the government to act as caretaker of our National Sovereignty. If a politician does not wish to work within the restrictions and rules of the Constitution, the honorable thing to do is resign and find useful employment. If Ted Cruz's supporters wish to live in a nation not protected by the Constitution they are free to move elsewhere.
But under the rules this nation operates on, Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States.
UPDATE: There is now talk of a Rubio/Cruz ticket to defeat Trump, but under the Twelfth Amendment, Cruz may not serve as Vice President either.
However, this would seem to contradict a follow-up on his part...But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.
http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htmNatural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England;
Interesting subject all around. Thanks for pointing me to this thread.
The last ruling covers *every* point on this thread. In fact, if the pro's and cons could just be able to rewrite from this thread into a much longer paper and fluently cite concurring legal opinions and added additional papers such as some links might take you to, you might have the same paper. It's a good overview of common law points and worth reading.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/williams-v-cruz-decision/
The other thread is here that discusses why this is actually a good thing.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...primary-ballot
The decision leaves off exactly where we left it in this thread, and is suggestive that might be the appeal the Supreme Court should look at:
The second to last sentence seems to broadly suggest that that is what should be looked at. (He actually wants the question settled, but the other way).The final issue to be noted is the fact that the parliamentary legislation recognized in Blackstone and presumably known to the founders that declared children born abroad to English-subject fathers to be natural born subjects did not provide that the children born abroad whose mother was the sole English subject parent were “natural-born.” Over time the required parentage of the child born abroad and denominated as “natural-born” had varied. As Bryan Garner notes, this gender-based differentiation does not automatically involve an unconstitutional distinction, “As things stand today, the Equal Protection Clause doesn’t forbid all gender differentiations.” Garner, supra, at 11. Clearly, it is hard to understand today how to justify why children borne abroad of citizen-fathers can be “natural born”, whereas those with only a citizen-mother are not. Indeed, in a case noted by Garner, Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 118 S. Ct.1428, 140 L. Ed.2 575 (1998), the Court, considering immigration matters relating to a child born to unwed parents, the Supreme Court upheld the distinction in treatment, noting that the mother must be present at birth and the father need not, and that the fact of giving birth automatically afforded the mother the opportunity to establish ties with the child that the father may not have. Such analysis might lead to the conclusion that if anything, allowable discrimination would favor the child with only a citizen-mother over the child with only a citizen-father. Garner observes that an originalist interpretation “would almost certainly” see the father-only distinction as one that the Supreme Court would today uphold. However, as he notes, and I agree, such an outcome seems to be at complete odds with contemporary understandings of equal protection as it is hard to discern any rational basis that would favor the child of father over child of the mother. If the distinction is to be upheld, and only father-citizen children born abroad and not those with only a mother-citizen parent are to be found to fit the definition of “natural born” such a conclusion must lie with another authority. Here, the equal protection element of the Constitution would properly override any common law based discrimination.[10]
Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 04-12-2016 at 10:40 PM.
Same thing in Vattel as in Blackstone.
"The Law of Nations" by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.
book one chapter 19,
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
For what it's worth, Art. I Sec. 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution specifically references the Law of Nations. So, then, it's enforceable. Irrelevant of why it was referenced, it was referenced. So, then, it has legal standing. Arguably anyway. Clause 10 empowers Congress to define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations. It's right there in black and white.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-13-2016 at 04:59 AM.
Anyway. I can't believe you guys are up this early with this stuff already. Heh.
This suggests she might already have given up her citizenship or started to when she moved to England with her first husband, who still lives there. I believe rules for getting citizenship between countries in the British Commonwealth were different - so that might explain part of the earlier thread. There are discrepancies between how the family described the move and first son and the actual documents, so people have been looking at it.“In 1956, my mom married her first husband, a mathematician named Alan Wilson,” Cruz wrote. The couple moved to London in 1960 after a few years working in the U.S., and Cruz revealed something of a bombshell: his mother had given birth to a son, Michael Wilson, in 1965, who had died a crib death later in the year
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...#storylink=cpy
Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 04-13-2016 at 05:40 AM.
A jury trier of fact - or in the event of a Senate impeachment, the legislative body trier of fact - is gonna see the quicksand Cruz has been walking on.
Catherine Frazier, the press secretary explanation points to the lie in discussing the CRBA filing . . . what year again was that Ms. Frazier (?)
Rafael Cruz Jr. is claiming he was an automatic Citizen by the act of being born in Canada to a father who was in political exile with a mother misrepresentation on the birth certificate.
It throws the question of parentage now up for hearing and the idea to use the doctrine of estoppel to get every shred of evidence in Ottawa.
And now the worm turns. I've been focusing on jurisprudence, what the law means and how it should read in common law and now the law of nations.
And Ted Cruz loses.
But the facts as they appear seem to utterly not support him either.
----
Fyi
Switching to the law of nations now makes sense when there is a dispute about whose kid this is - as the liberals, "men and women are equal even if we didn't amend anything", seem to be pushing towards that (ignorantly).
Under their idea on the table, the Constitution may have been understood at one time as the citizenship of the father is what is important to that of the children, but because of style, modern times, and lots of hand waving, it should be changed. Doing it by *either* parent allows dual citizenship to exist - which is contrary to the common law we've been looking at and the very spirit of constitution - and to the very passage we are looking at - which is trying to avoid foreign influence. It would nullify it.
However, if the Democrat lawyers succeed in making that argument - they will have created a situation where there is a dispute between two countries over which citizenship a child has. In which case The Law of Nations takes over, and as seen above - the law of nations also says that the father is the ultimate arbitrator over which citizenship the child has. The Democrat lawyers AND Cruz lose again.
You can also directly get to challenges based on fact and try the case because there is a dispute between nations. Ted Cruz has a Canadian citizenship based on being natural born there. His father is not an American. He is claiming citizenship in America as being natural born. Only the law of nations can resolve a dispute like that. The law of nations says the same thing as common law. Cruz loses yet again (and he appears to have a lousy factual case, with much more he's hiding).
PS: Down with the 14th!
Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 04-13-2016 at 04:46 PM.
Vattel, The Law of Nations, 1758There are many cases, therefore, in which the law of Nature does not decide between state and state in the same manner as it would between man and man. We must therefore know how to accommodate the application of it to different subjects; and it is the art of thus applying it with a precision founded on right reason, that renders the law of Nations a distinct science.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resourc...rview/hist.asp
Canadian Citizenship Act [January 1, 1947-February 15,1977]
Up to January 1, 1947, there was no legal status of Canadian citizens, only British subjects. This Act gave legal recognition to the terms “Canadian citizen” and “Canadian citizenship”. The Act established who was and who could become a Canadian citizen. There were many provisions for loss of citizenship, including retention provisions for the first and subsequent generations born outside Canada. The Act also contained provisions which provided special treatment for British subjects. In general, Canadian citizens who acquired citizenship of another country automatically lost Canadian citizenship (dual citizenship was not recognized).Some more law, this time Canadian, indicating Cruz was never a dual citizen, not only not natural born but also not naturalized and only a canadian. Canada didn't allow dual citizenship.Ted Cruz has given up his Canadian dual citizenship. The renunciation became official on May 14, 2014, roughly 9 months after he ... to Cruz and his parents when The Dallas Morning News reported on it ... In December, Cruz said he had hired lawyers to assist in the effort to renounce his Canadian citizenship.
Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 05-01-2016 at 06:10 PM.
nm
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us