If Ted Cruz Was Born in Canada, He Cannot Be President: PERIOD

[Steve_McGarrett]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:
"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".[28]
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

The Congress of 1790 screwed up, that's not unusual. They destroyed the exclusionary principle desired by the framers totally. The Congress in 1795 had to block the huge gap the act of 1790 had created.


Comparing the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts
Indiana University ^ | 1790, 1795 | US Congress

1790 Naturalization Act:
"..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..."
1795 Naturalization Act:
"...the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States..."

ergo...no help for cruz. The 1795 Act only affords him ordinary citizenship. You must be a wild-eyed living constitutionalist the way you're trying to make that very special exclusionary clause "natural born citizen" evolve into an open door clause.

I think you're wrong on several points but I don't have much time right now. You mention Wong Kim Ark's case, if you read below Justice Gray's explanation rules out the possibility of Cruz being natural born, the bolded part says it all. A naturalized citizen has no path to natural born citizenship.

The issue was examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Justice Gray explained in that case:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Your recent posts are accurate. Thanks.

 

[Searcher44]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:
"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".[28]
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen".
Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
St. George Tucker also weighs in with;
"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague".

I've replied to this post already so this is basically a P.S. I'm slightly confused, you seem to be arguing that Ted Cruz qualifies as a "natural born citizen". Yet your posts are arguing that place, (or jus soli), is the only factor we have to take into account to determine who has that citizenship status. For instance you say

"Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other criteria" You include many lines of evidence to support this claim in your posts. All this energy expended to try to prove a person has to be born on U.S soil to be a "natural born citizen" while everybody acknowledges that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. So how do you get from here to there? You tried to use the 1790 Naturalization Act but that led nowhere because the 1790 Act was reversed by the 1795 Act. And even if it hadn't been there would be strong argument that a Congressional statute could not override a Constitutional Provision unless it was an amendment. That's a moot point now any way. So do you have a plan "B"? Plan "A" was a pretty weak attempt to neuter a clause which the framers thought important enough to use only once in an attempt to erect an exclusionary barrier to persons who may have through some factor of birth the potential of having or developing loyalty to a foreign power. "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government" As John Jay put it.

You say "Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place."

So this very special clause with very considerate intent seems to have no value to you. You would open the Presidency up to even dual citizens of any nation, children who happen to be born in the U.S.A. to any alien parents. I'll assume the role of a super-nationalist racist Know-Nothing here. Your definition means two ISIS sympathizers from Saudi Arabia could enter the U.S., say on student visas, have a child and that child would grow up to be legally credentialed to run for President. That really kicks the founders and framers worry about "foreign influence" right out of the ballpark. That makes you or whichever judge sanctioned that "natural born birth" the most dangerous activist Judge since Taney.

 

[Skylar]

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

So a guy who wouldn't sign the constitution vs. the guy that *wrote* it? Not a difficult choice on who would know what they were talking about.

Ask yourself, why did the Founders use the exact term 'natural-born citizen'? It seems rather specific. It wasn't Vattel. It wasn't Law of Nations. Random chance seems highly unlikely.

Easy: 'natural-born' was a specific legal term in British Common Law. With a specific meaning: those born in the allegiance to your nation. Centered exclusively on place of birth. Not parentage.

You're trying awfully hard here to come up with an alternative explanation for something that isn't particularly complicated. And the evidence is all on one side of this issue.

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen".

I direct you again to Madison, in the very conversation we drew the 'place of birth' quote that you dismissed as 'too far' from the discussion. Which again bears fruit in this conversation. Allegiance follows place of birth. You have a 'right of birth' which acknowledges your allegiance follows the community you were born into. This was the assumption the founders were working on, in fact the foundation of their transition from British Subjects to American Citizens:

What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

This is why the founders put such an emphasis on allegiance following *location*. As it was their legal and philosophical basis for their allegiance to the new United States rather than their former British Empire. That the new Americans had allegiance to where they were born first. And why adults who wished to become US citizens and weren't born here had to jump through so many hoops. Because they didn't carry with this this first, fundamental allegiance of 'right of birth' being born into the community to which they would have natural allegiance.

Bingham is irrelevant to any originalist understanding of the meaning of the term. As he's nearly a century too late, with his comments coming in 1866. Not 1766. Bingham wasn't an itch in his grandpappy's pants when Madison and the Founders wrote the constitution.

I've replied to this post already so this is basically a P.S. I'm slightly confused, you seem to be arguing that Ted Cruz qualifies as a "natural born citizen". Yet your posts are arguing that place, (or jus soli), is the only factor we have to take into account to determine who has that citizenship status. For instance you say

"Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other criteria" You include many lines of evidence to support this claim in your posts. All this energy expended to try to prove a person has to be born on U.S soil to be a "natural born citizen" while everybody acknowledges that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. So how do you get from here to there? You tried to use the 1790 Naturalization Act but that led nowhere because the 1790 Act was reversed by the 1795 Act. And even if it hadn't been there would be strong argument that a Congressional statute could not override a Constitutional Provision unless it was an amendment. That's a moot point now any way. So do you have a plan "B"? Plan "A" was a pretty weak attempt to neuter a clause which the framers thought important enough to use only once in an attempt to erect an exclusionary barrier to persons who may have through some factor of birth the potential of having or developing loyalty to a foreign power. "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government" As John Jay put it.

Its not in question that the founder's understanding of 'natural born' at the time of the ratification of the constitution was predicated exclusively on place of birth. As Madison argued, the community you were born into and had allegiance to by 'right of birth'. Everyone from the Supreme Court to the State department recognizes that citizenship by blood is not embodied in the constitution. With the Supreme Court recognizing that those born outside the US to US parents and granted citizenship are naturalized.

The only relevant question related to Cruz's citizenship was the one I raised at the end of my post:

Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

 

[Skylar]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:
"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".[28]
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

The Congress of 1790 screwed up, that's not unusual. They destroyed the exclusionary principle desired by the framers totally. The Congress in 1795 had to block the huge gap the act of 1790 had created.

They WERE the framers. The 1790 Naturalization Act was passed within 2 years of the ratification of the Constitution. This isn't just the same generation. In many cases, these are the same people.

And they didn't know what they were doing? They didn't understand the constitution? I'd argue that they had a far firmer grasp of what the Founders intended than either of us do.

As they were the Founders.

 

[Skylar]

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Says who? The 1790 Congress did exactly what you insist can never be done: extended natural born citizenship to those born outside the US.

I'll go with the very first session of congress, 2 years after the ratification of the Constitution......over you citing yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:
"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".[28]
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth

Can you prove he was naturalized?

 

[thanatos144]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:
"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".[28]
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Where are the naturalization papers ?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:
"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".[28]
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth

Can you prove he was naturalized?

I've proved it already

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:
"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".[28]
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Where are the naturalization papers ?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Probably he/ mom has them or they're at the U.S. consulate in Canada.

 

[thanatos144]

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Where are the naturalization papers ?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Probably he/ mom has them or they're at the U.S. consulate in Canada.

Prove your accusations. I am tired of your racist rants and stupidity. Prove what comes out of your ignorance

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Skylar]

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Where are the naturalization papers ?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Probably he/ mom has them or they're at the U.S. consulate in Canada.

Or they don't exist, as Ted was a citizen at birth.

 

[Lovebears65]

So what your saying that if a military family is stationed overseas and their child is born over there and wants to be president they cant?

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth

Can you prove he was naturalized?

I've proved it already

No, your unsubstantiated claims haven't proven anything.
If you have proof he was naturalized, show it.
Start with the date it occurred. Copies of the paperwork would also be useful.
Pointing to the Constitution and claiming it says things it doesn't is not helping your case.

 

[Syriusly]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:
"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".[28]
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Well if anyone believes that God made him a citizen- that would be Cruz.

Trump of course believes he himself is God.

 

[Syriusly]

We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.

We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.

This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.

As a citizen of Canada my opinion on this is not based on who I want to vote for. I have been a fan of the U.S. Constitution since I became aware of human rights when I was a very young man. I probably have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution than the average American. People the world over cherish the Document's noble idealism as much as the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have offered my opinion a few times on this topic. I have reminded people of the origin of the term "natural born citizen". I'll offer it again, this is mostly from Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:
"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".[28]
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate".[29]
Obviously Washington and the drafting committee had the term in mind as exclusionary, they had in mind a citizen whom they considered as American as one could define at that time. Just "citizen" or even "Native born citizen" was not exclusionary enough apparently. A person could become a citizen in several ways, a native born citizen could have a French mother and German father or any combination of nationalities, again I think it's obvious this is one type of "foreign influence" "natural born citizen" was meant to disqualify from being Commander in Chief or President. My own opinion is that a person born with dual citizenship in a foreign country would also automatically be denied the designation "natural born citizen" because of the potential for dual loyalties. This is from a Dept. of State site on "Legal Considerations";
"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. nationals may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance."

Other posters have mentioned Vattel the French writer on Natural Law as an influence on John Jay and other framers. It's claimed his definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is what they had in mind when introducing the clause. Vattel said;
"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."
My intuition is that as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and the person is born on U.S. Territory that would qualify as "Natural Born".
Ted Cruz's father was still a Cuban citizen living in Canada when Ted was born in Canada. Ted's father could be classed as an economic emigre I suppose, he had fled Cuba in 1957 while Batista was still in power and had supported Castro as a young man. In 1973 he became a Canadian citizen. He renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2005. The U.S. didn't have diplomatic relations with his father's Cuba at that time of Ted's birth. There are many other facts and factors that complicate Ted's citizenship status. I've seen people claim his parents never filed the papers necessary to legitimize his U.S. citizenship. I haven't found evidence one way or the other.
The question of what qualifies a person as a natural born citizen has never been decided in the SCOTUS. I think it's inevitable that someone, as likely Republican
as Democrat will launch a suit over this and I don't think this court will have the easy out of denying standing, Ted's situation is just too obviously borderline even for his most ardent supporters who ironically are typically the most ardent Constitutionalists.
For the sake of full disclosure I'll admit I can't stand looking at the guy's waxy plastic face, everybody has experienced disliking someone on first sight. As a Canadian I claim the right to be shallow in my judgement, his ugly smug mug repulsed me the first time I saw him and hearing him speak only intensified the repulsion. I sense reptilian scales just beneath that sweaty plastic "conservative" mask.

Vattel's Law of Nations is irrelevant. There's no mention of 'natural born citizen' in any edition or any language of the 'Law of Nations'.....until after the constitution was ratified. The first edition that ever did, was 1790. The constitution was passed in 1788. Making Vattel a physical impossibility as the source of the Founder's understanding of 'natural born' without a blue police box or a delorean.

Location of birth was the founders understanding of allegiance. As James Madison makes ludicrously clear MONTHS after the passage of the Constitution:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

Even the Supreme Court recognized that the term 'natural born' could only be gleaned through English common law. Which recognized that a child born under the jurisdiction of the Kings law was a natural born subject. Even if both the child's parents were aliens.

Location is key. Not parentage. A point reiterated by the Supreme Court that found that anyone born outside the US who gains citizenship because their parents were US citizens....

.....had been naturalized.

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is, then he's a naturalized citizen. If you're more a living constitution kinda gal, then Cruz is natural born.

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

First of all British Common Law was not beloved by all Founders, George Mason, a little obscure but a hero for some, he demanded the bill of rights and refused to sign the final document because the Constitution had not ended slavery, he said;
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

And from a Federalist blog, "Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
"It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. y.

Thomas Jefferson- while he was President- was a dual citizen of the United States and France.

You would think he would be aware what the 'founders considered 'improper and dangerous'

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Couple of points here. I don't know where you got your info on Vattel's "Law of Nations." Everything I've seen indicates it was published in 1758 and many of the Founders were familiar with it.

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth

Can you prove he was naturalized?

I've proved it already

No, your unsubstantiated claims haven't proven anything.
If you have proof he was naturalized, show it.
Start with the date it occurred. Copies of the paperwork would also be useful.
Pointing to the Constitution and claiming it says things it doesn't is not helping your case.

I have provided nothing but historic case law and statutes in this thread and the other one proving Cruz was naturalized at birth. You provide nothing, absolutely nothing.

Steve McGarrett, Conservative White American Patriot of European Heritage

 

[Skylar]

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth

Can you prove he was naturalized?

I've proved it already

No, your unsubstantiated claims haven't proven anything.
If you have proof he was naturalized, show it.
Start with the date it occurred. Copies of the paperwork would also be useful.
Pointing to the Constitution and claiming it says things it doesn't is not helping your case.

I have provided nothing but historic case law and statutes in this thread and the other one proving Cruz is naturalized at birth. You provide nothing, absolutely nothing.

There is no statute in the entire USC that says that Cruz was naturalized. Which you know. Which is why you won't quote the United States Code.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was published in 1758...in French. However, it wasn't translated into English until 1760, and didn't include any reference to 'natural born citizen' in any edition in any language....until 1797. Years after the Constitution had already been ratified. The term that would eventually be changed to 'natural born citizen' was the french word for 'Indigenes' or 'native'.

Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1760 English Edition of the Law of Nations:

With zero reference to 'natural born' anything. Here's an image of the relevant section of the 1787 English edition of Law of Nations:

You'll notice there is no reference whatsoever to natural born citizen here either. It isn't until the 1797 edition that term 'natural born citizen' first appears in any English edition. In any edition in any language, in fact. As the original french doesn't match it either. The 1797 English edition of Vattel is amended to read as follows:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Here's is the original French:

"Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

The word for 'citizen' in French....is Citoyens. And it appears only once in that sentence. At the end in reference to parents. No where does the term 'natural born citizen' appear in the orginal french, the 1760 English edition, the 1787 English edition, or any edition in any language.......until 1797.

10 full years after the constitution was written. Its thus physically impossible for the Founders to have used Vattel's Law of Nations as the basis of their understanding of 'natural born citizen'.

Instead, the Founders used the British Common Law understanding of the term, as British Common law absolutely *did* use the term 'natural born'. Which the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated was the lens through which the term 'natural born' could be understood when they offered this:

Place of birth, being born in the jurisdiction of the King's law....established natural born status. Even if your parents were aliens. Parentage is essentially irrelevant in the founder's understanding of 'natural born'. As James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' reiterated only a handful of months after the Constitution had been ratified:

The United States is based heavily in the British legal tradition, with British Common Law being the law with which the founders were most familiar.

As for the topic being discussed by Madison being 'too far' from Article 2, Section 1, I utterly disagree. Its a discussion by Madison of the nature of allegiance in citizenship in US and British law. Which as the Supreme Court demonstrated with their citation of British Common Law, was the beating heart of natural born status. Madison's words mirror British Common Law on the topic almost exactly. British Common Law had no concern for parentage, but only place. Madison had no concern for parentage, only place.

Madison does two things with this citation. First, he establishes that its the British Legal tradition from which American law on citizenship and allegiance is drawn. With Madison citing British law as *evidence* of his arguments regarding American law. With American law mirroring British law. This alone stomps on the neck of any reference ot Vattel.

Second, he establishes that the American conception of allegiance in citizenship mirrors the British Common law understanding exactly. Place of birth alone defines allegiance. And it is unnecessary to investigate any other critiera. Which stomps on the neck of 'Law of Nations' with both feet.

So Vattel fails four times.

1) The 'Law of Nations' makes no mention of 'natural born citizen' or 'natural born' anything at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

2) Madison makes it ludicrously clear that in terms of citizenship and allegiance, British Common law is the progenitor of the US conception of both.

3) Madison's explanation of allegiance following place of birth in the US mirrors the very British Common Law that he cites exactly.

4) While British law is explicitly cited as evidence of American law by the Founders (by the Father of the Constitution, no less), Vattel's law of nation isn't. It was 'known to be known' to the founders. That's it. They were aware it existed. There's zero evidence it was the basis of their understanding of natural born citizenship. Its never mentioned once, in any capacity, in any session of the Constitutional convention. Nor is it cited in any debates on the 1790 Naturalization act as the basis of any understanding of citizenship, allegiance, natural born status, or in any capacity whatsoever.

Take special note that in the *entirity* of your block quote of Wikipedia, the Declaration of Independence and Vattel....there's zero mention of the natural born anything.

Now, as to Cruz's natural born status, there is only one relevant question: Did the founders intend the term 'natural born citizen' to be embodied exclusively in the constitution, or did they intend that it could be embodied in congressional statute? I argue the latter. As the founders did exactly that in the 1790 Naturalization Act, extending natural born citizenship to those born outside the US to US parents.

In the very first session of congress.

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth

Can you prove he was naturalized?

I've proved it already

No, your unsubstantiated claims haven't proven anything.
If you have proof he was naturalized, show it.
Start with the date it occurred. Copies of the paperwork would also be useful.
Pointing to the Constitution and claiming it says things it doesn't is not helping your case.

I have provided nothing but historic case law and statutes in this thread and the other one proving Cruz was naturalized at birth. You provide nothing, absolutely nothing.

Steve McGarrett, Conservative White American Patriot of European Heritage

None of your "proof" proves he was naturalized.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth

Can you prove he was naturalized?

I've proved it already

No, your unsubstantiated claims haven't proven anything.
If you have proof he was naturalized, show it.
Start with the date it occurred. Copies of the paperwork would also be useful.
Pointing to the Constitution and claiming it says things it doesn't is not helping your case.

I have provided nothing but historic case law and statutes in this thread and the other one proving Cruz was naturalized at birth. You provide nothing, absolutely nothing.

Steve McGarrett, Conservative White American Patriot of European Heritage

None of your "proof" proves he was naturalized.

Yes it does.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth thus making him a citizen by statute. A statutory citizen (bestowed by mans pen) can never be made into a natural born Citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

All of that obfuscation and in the end Ted Cruz, born in Canada, was naturalized at birth

Can you prove he was naturalized?

I've proved it already

No, your unsubstantiated claims haven't proven anything.
If you have proof he was naturalized, show it.
Start with the date it occurred. Copies of the paperwork would also be useful.
Pointing to the Constitution and claiming it says things it doesn't is not helping your case.

I have provided nothing but historic case law and statutes in this thread and the other one proving Cruz is naturalized at birth. You provide nothing, absolutely nothing.

There is no statute in the entire USC that says that Cruz was naturalized. Which you know. Which is why you won't quote the United States Code.

Nowhere in the code will you find the term 'natural norn Citizen'. Nowhere! Attempting to conflate 'Citizen' and 'natural born Citizen' is futile. They are not the same.