Ted Cruz is Ineligible for the Presidency

[Forty Two]

Being born overseas to two American parents doesn't make you a "Natural Born" Citizen. It can make you a "citizen at birth" but that's different than the constitutional term, "Natural Born Citizen." The only customary exceptions were if you were born by happenstance on an airplane, in an airport, or on a military base or embassy where it is arguably American jurisdiction. Or, if your parents were on vacation or something. But, even that is not tested or settled law. Certainly if they lived overseas, you aren't a natural born citizen just because mom and dad are American.

Can you cite anything to support your assertion regarding "customary exceptions"?

Nope -- I should clarify, those exceptions have never been tested, as nobody claiming that has tried to run for President. So, I raise them, but they may not even cut the mustard.

[Seth]

Since this was not a case involving qualifications for president, his remarks on that certainly do not set a precedent. What Sandford's decision does is show the thoughts and supporting evidence in regard to the term "natural born citizen" used by a respected American jurist during a time not very far removed from that of the writing of the Constitution.

Well, it shows HIS thoughts on the matter of whether or not Julia Clarke was a citizen seventy years after the Founders wrote the Constitution. The preponderance of the evidence however disagrees with his single, irrelevant and not well supported dicta statement that you build your whole argument upon.

Wait, you just said that Sanford's exegisis was made on the basis of "no previous rulings on that." That seems to be the basis of your reliance on his words as some sort of ruling precedent, so how could he be expounding on how the term "natural born citizen" "was actually used in the legislation of the day."

You are certainly aware that "rulings" in this context means decisions made in American courts, while "legislation" means laws written and passed by various legislatures. As I stated, Sandford's decision examines how the term is used in American legislation of his day, absent previous decisions ("rulings") made by any American judge in regard to the term. I have not stated that Sandford's decision is "some sort of ruling precedent" in regard to qualifications for the office of president. Rather, I cite his decision to show the thinking of a respected early American jurist whose knowledge of the laws of his time as well as his knowledge of the general understanding of those laws by the contemporary legal community can inform us as to what American jurisprudence of the period understood by the term "natural born citizen."

Actually, Sanford's decision does nothing of the kind. His decision examines whether or not a person born on US soil is a citizen entitled to inherit under US law and nothing else. His obiter dictum exegesis as a passing comment expressing his personal opinion on the meaning of "natural born citizen" with respect to qualification to be President is actually entirely unsupported by his own citations of past precedent and legislation and common-law usages of either the Founder's time or his own time. As I said before he very loosely and interchangeably uses "native" and "natural born" in the context of "born on US soil" in correctly determining that Julia Clarke was a citizen of the United States "by/at birth" and was therefore entitled to inherit. His tossing in of an unsupported opinion on who might be eligible to be President, regardless of the esteem in which you might hold him, does not actually reflect contemporary law either when the Constitution was written or 70 years later in a state chancery court. It provides no more useful information than any other person's bald statement of opinion because he tosses it out as his opinion, and says so, without actually examining in any way the distinction between "native" and "natural born" and the reasons why the Founders used "natural born" rather than "native" or some other language in writing the clause.

Even if he had provided an even more exhaustively detailed exegesis specifically on the historical meaning of "natural born citizen" it still wouldn't provide much insight to anything other than his own personal preferences in the matter because he would have merely been blathering on about something he was neither tasked or authorized to rule upon.

If there was legislation of the day defining "natural born citizen" then he would have simply cited that statute as justification for his ruling. He didn't. What he did do was to point out that under the legislation of the day Julia Clarke was a "citizen" of the United States by virtue of her birth on American soil. And that is all he did.

Sandford states that his duty is not to establish the rule of law but to ascertain a rule which has been in force from the era of the Federal Constitution, so he examines the usage in legislation of the term "natural born citizen" to show what is meant by that term. As stated above, in doing so Sandford provides a window into American legal thought of his time.

No, he doesn't. He examines the meaning of "citizen" and how and if one Julia Clarke falls into that category, drawing a distinction only between "native" citizens, sometimes referred to by him as "natural born citizens," and "aliens" or "naturalized citizens." His primary argument was as against New York law and the claims of the plaintiffs in the matter who wished to disinherit Julia Clarke because despite clearly having been born here she was taken back to and raised in England and therefore the plaintiffs felt that she should be deemed an English (or Irish actually) citizen for the purposes of American estate law.

Sandford's conclusions were that no New York law respecting a right to inherit based on nationality of any kind ruled the issue, and that it was only the Constitution and the Congress that controlled who was and was not a US citizen and therefore entitled to all of the protections of a US citizen. Sandford was not even ruling on federal law because he was not a federal court judge. He was ruling on a private civil suit and all the 30,000 words he wrote amounted to was to say that New York inheritance laws did not supersede or take precedence over acts of Congress or constitutional principles of "jus soli" citizenship. That's it.

He might have "provided a window" into his thinking, but his thinking post-dates the thinking of the Founders by two generations and is therefore of zero value as determinative of the original intent of the Founders, which can ONLY be found by reference to THEIR discussions and writings on the subject based upon THEIR knowledge and understanding of the relevant terms that preceded their decision to use those exact words. What Sandford thinks about it 70 years later is beyond irrelevant to the issue of proper constitutional interpretation.

West's use of the term "natural born citizen" is not determinative either.

The quotation from West's Encyclopedia of American Law does not use that term. What it does is show that people who are "foreign-born" (as opposed to native-born) must go through a process known as "naturalization" in order to become citizens of the United States. On linguistic grounds it seems a legitimate inference therefore to say that in regard to citizenship, "native-born" equates to "natural born," else a different term for the process would be used, thus:

It's not linguistically legitimate at all because "native born" and "natural born" have different meanings, particularly with respect to the qualification language in the Constitution. As I said, the canons of statutory interpretation do not permit you or anyone else to substitute one word for another word in any statute, no matter how inferentially reasonable it might be to you. Each word has a specific meaning and that meaning is established by the original intent of those who ratified or enacted the law. Thus, an ambiguous term intended by the drafter of the statute can actually have an entirely different meaning if those who actually voted to enact the law had a different understanding of the term or expressed an intent to give it some other meaning in some clear and unequivocal manner.

1. Plain Meaning
Courts generally assume that the words of a statute mean what an “ordinary” or “reasonable” person would understand them to mean.7 Moreover, some courts adhere to the principle that if the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the court need not inquire any further into the meaning of the statute.8 While you should always begin with your own experience and understanding of language and grammar, it is a good idea to consult other sources of authority to determine the meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase, or to determine whether a particular word or phrase has a specific meaning. We suggest beginning with “primary sources” (i.e., the statute itself, case law, administrative regulations) before looking beyond to “secondary sources” (i.e., dictionaries, legal encyclopedias). These are among the least contentious places to look for aid in interpreting a statutory word or phrase. Source

A person who is born in the United States, on the other hand, is a "natural born citizen" regardless of the status of that person's parents.

Begging the question. The customary usages and understandings at the time the Constitution was written do not support your claim.

That has not been definitively proven (otherwise there would be no basis for discussion) and the historical analysis in the CRS report contradicts your assertion.

Yes, the definition of "natural born citizen" is, in today's context, subject to differing opinions, but that doesn't mean that the meaning of the term has not been definitively proven. It merely means that some people do not wish to acknowledge the existing definitive proofs, largely because of political agendas and objections, and not because the term is at all legally unclear.

This dispute is a manufactured one, and it was manufactured back when Barack Obama's eligibility was brought into question.

The third qualification to be President is that one must be a "natural born Citizen" (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Although any citizen may become a Member of Congress so long as he has held citizenship for the requisite time period, to be President, one must be "a natural born Citizen." Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern. During the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote to George Washington, urging "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." Justice Story later noted that the natural-born–citizenship requirement "cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office."

Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President. As early as 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." 1 Stat. 104 (1790). The "natural born" terminology was dropped shortly thereafter. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c). But the question remains whether the term "natural born Citizen" used in Article II includes the parliamentary rule of jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of "citizen" in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born–citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship though jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.

In the highlighted text above note the plural used with respect to the parents of children born abroad. This is an important point because if you look closely you will find that in the vast majority of arguments about the citizenship status of children born abroad the authorities use the plural form in describing "parents", not "parent." As I said before, every word has meaning in statutes and if a legislature, including an English legislature, intended that "natural born citizenship" would inure to a child born of one citizen (or in the case of England a "subject") and one "alien" or "foreigner" with respect to children born outside of the soil of the nation, that would be made manifest as a modification of the "plain meaning" of the term "parents who are citizens/subjects".

And as I said earlier, English law, both statutory and common law in the times preceding the establishment of the United States were quite clear that a child of an English citizen father and a non-citizen foreigner who had not been naturalized, which child was born outside of the King's domain, was NOT a "citizen by/at birth" or a "natural born citizen" but instead occupied an indeterminate state with respect to English laws of citizenship (and particularly inheritance) unless the child was "naturalized" into English citizenship.

This sort of problem was quite common at the time because of the propensity for English men to spread their wild oats about in foreign ports and lands. Songs are sung even today of the practice of soldiers having wives at home and wives abroad, and the foreign brides and their children had no rights with respect to inheriting anything from the soldier, and particularly if the soldier was married at home the subsequent marriage was deemed to be invalid anyway as bigamy.

As the John Jay and Justice Story quotes above show, the Founders were quite familiar with English law in this regard and were well aware of the dangers of allowing the child of a foreign father, who might be of the nobility or who might otherwise owe allegiance to some foreign power, and an American mother might be subject to the influences of a foreign power through the relationship of the father (such as, for example, the child's right to inherit title, land and money from the father's estate) to the child that would be undesirable in a person holding the office of President of the United States. That is why they used the specific and exclusive term "natural born citizen" in that particular context, to prevent any possibility of such a situation arising.

This was the contemporary understanding of the meaning of the term and the intent of the Founders in using that specific term in the Constitution.

Whatever people may think about what the term means after that time, from Sandford to the CRS to Congress itself, all of those opinions are irrelevant because the meaning of the term cannot "morph" into something other than what it meant to the people who wrote and ratified it, and that meaning and intent is perfectly clear if one honestly examines the contemporary documents they themselves wrote and has an unbiased understanding of the laws and precedents upon which their understandings and intents were based.

So, this manufactured debate does need to be clarified by the Supreme Court if for no other reason than to once again put a stake through the heart of the silly Progressive notion that the Constitution "adapts" or changes as the "needs", beliefs or lexicon of the public changes. The Constitution can be changed, but it cannot be changed by attempting to redefine the words which were written and ratified. As with the 2nd Amendment, if the meaning of "natural born citizen" is to mean anything other than "a child born of two US citizens" then the only way to achieve this is by amending the Constitution using the appointed process.

[Seth]

I think you should be able to see this: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 6535794459

You can opine about Sanders all you like, but he's spot on here.

No he isn't. Moreover, Greenspan's rebuttal was deliberately elided, which makes it a rant indeed, a rant filled with biased statistics that sound bad but may not be because economics are more complex that Bernie thinks.

For one thing, if manufacturing in China or Mexico costing thirty cents an hour were brought back to Vermont where labor costs twenty bucks an hour, there would be no manufacturing at all.

That's what "living wage" and "minimum wage" fuckwits never understand. Short of State Socialism attempts at central control of manufacturing (which always fail anyway), when government imposes regulations on industry that causes the cost of labor to exceed the profit available in the market, manufacturing of that product, or providing of that service (like flipping burgers) ceases to occur. And when that happens, employers don't keep employees on the payroll and continue to pay them for doing nothing, nor can anyone force them to do so, so those employees who Bernie thinks will be making 20 bucks an hour manufacturing gee-gaws that the Chinese can manufacture for 30 cents an hour will be unemployed and will be demanding largess from the public treasury, which will quickly deplete said treasury, leading to social and economic failure.

People get paid what they are worth to the employer, no more, no less. Fuck with that balance too much and the employer will simply stop employing the employees.

People in China get thirty cents an hour because in China thirty cents an hour goes a hell of a lot further than zero cents an hour, which is what they would be getting if government requires manufacturers to pay all employees everywhere a fixed "living" or "minimum" wage because manufacturers will simply shut down the plants because it's unprofitable to keep them open.

Which leaves, in the case of China, tens of millions of people with no income at all. Evidently though that's fine with Bernie, who I think understands this dynamic but being a Marxists, doesn't give a fuck about the working class either here or in China and their economic condition and who actually WANTS business to fire workers in order to trigger what Marxists like Bernie always want: Armed uprisings against the bourgeoisie merchant class and outright seizure of their assets for forcible redistribution to the proletarian masses to sway them towards socialism...with Bernie in charge as President, living in the White House and spending tens of millions on junkets and vacations to Cuba and Venezuela.

Follow the money.

[Forty Two]

But, does Ted Cruz cry?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... o-you-cry/

Dopey interviewer asked Donald Trump if he cried. Donald Trump said, well, no, he doesn't cry. He likes to focus on getting things done, so he doesn't go around crying a lot. Sounds reasonable.

Big criers aren't the ones you really want in a position of responsibility. It's o.k. in a calm situation, like if there is a funeral or some sort of tragedy involving children has happened. But, day to day -- you really don't want a crier doing a job. You want a doer -- one who doesn't get bogged down in other things. Just get it done. Cry later.

[pErvinalia]

I cried once, but the tears didn't form.

[L'Emmerdeur]

You are certainly aware that "rulings" in this context means decisions made in American courts, while "legislation" means laws written and passed by various legislatures. As I stated, Sandford's decision examines how the term is used in American legislation of his day, absent previous decisions ("rulings") made by any American judge in regard to the term. I have not stated that Sandford's decision is "some sort of ruling precedent" in regard to qualifications for the office of president. Rather, I cite his decision to show the thinking of a respected early American jurist whose knowledge of the laws of his time as well as his knowledge of the general understanding of those laws by the contemporary legal community can inform us as to what American jurisprudence of the period understood by the term "natural born citizen."

Actually, Sanford's decision does nothing of the kind. His decision examines whether or not a person born on US soil is a citizen entitled to inherit under US law and nothing else.

This is simply a display of willful obtuseness. In the process of deciding the case, Sandford does indeed examine how the term "natural born citizen" is used in American legislation of his day, and your "nuh UH" doesn't change that fact.

His obiter dictum exegesis as a passing comment expressing his personal opinion on the meaning of "natural born citizen" with respect to qualification to be President is actually entirely unsupported by his own citations of past precedent and legislation and common-law usages of either the Founder's time or his own time.

Sandford was not trying to support his comment about qualifications for the office of President--it was an aside, and I've never said otherwise. What he was doing was supporting his decision in the case. You may disagree with his reasoning, but nobody cares what you think, while Sandford's decision in that case was cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.

As I said before he very loosely and interchangeably uses "native" and "natural born" in the context of "born on US soil" in correctly determining that Julia Clarke was a citizen of the United States "by/at birth" and was therefore entitled to inherit. His tossing in of an unsupported opinion on who might be eligible to be President, regardless of the esteem in which you might hold him, does not actually reflect contemporary law either when the Constitution was written or 70 years later in a state chancery court. It provides no more useful information than any other person's bald statement of opinion because he tosses it out as his opinion, and says so, without actually examining in any way the distinction between "native" and "natural born" and the reasons why the Founders used "natural born" rather than "native" or some other language in writing the clause.

The reason that term was used is examined in the Congressional Research Service report. The finding of that report in regard to the meaning of "natural born citizen" agrees with Sandford, and I think the historical analysis it contains is much more reasonable than your attempts to support your own position. You "keep telling" me this and that, but your opinion conflicts with reliable sources, including Sandford. Your attempt to discount the thinking of a respected American jurist who was educated in American law in the early part of the 19th century as having no more relevance than "any other person's" is laughable.

Sandford states that his duty is not to establish the rule of law but to ascertain a rule which has been in force from the era of the Federal Constitution, so he examines the usage in legislation of the term "natural born citizen" to show what is meant by that term. As stated above, in doing so Sandford provides a window into American legal thought of his time.

No, he doesn't.

Yes, he does. Try reading the decision. If you have read the decision, then you've apparently failed to comprehend what Sandford wrote. There is certainly no basis in denying that Sandford's decision is a clear statement of an American jurist's understanding of American law in the first part of the 19th century. Again, this decision has been cited by the Supreme Court of the United States, so while you may find it easy to dismiss, that is not the opinion of others.

He might have "provided a window" into his thinking, but his thinking post-dates the thinking of the Founders by two generations and is therefore of zero value as determinative of the original intent of the Founders, which can ONLY be found by reference to THEIR discussions and writings on the subject based upon THEIR knowledge and understanding of the relevant terms that preceded their decision to use those exact words. What Sandford thinks about it 70 years later is beyond irrelevant to the issue of proper constitutional interpretation.

Feel free to quote "THEIR discussions and writings on the subject" to support your assertions. I'm talking about unequivocal statements, not those that are open to more than one interpretation. I freely admit that I've been unable to find such, nor has anybody else. You'll be widely celebrated in Birther circles and famous nationwide if you can produce anything along those lines.

The quotation from West's Encyclopedia of American Law does not use that term. What it does is show that people who are "foreign-born" (as opposed to native-born) must go through a process known as "naturalization" in order to become citizens of the United States. On linguistic grounds it seems a legitimate inference therefore to say that in regard to citizenship, "native-born" equates to "natural born," else a different term for the process would be used, thus:

It's not linguistically legitimate at all because "native born" and "natural born" have different meanings, particularly with respect to the qualification language in the Constitution. As I said, the canons of statutory interpretation do not permit you or anyone else to substitute one word for another word in any statute, no matter how inferentially reasonable it might be to you. Each word has a specific meaning and that meaning is established by the original intent of those who ratified or enacted the law. Thus, an ambiguous term intended by the drafter of the statute can actually have an entirely different meaning if those who actually voted to enact the law had a different understanding of the term or expressed an intent to give it some other meaning in some clear and unequivocal manner.

See above. Cite unequivocal writing by the authors or ratifiers of the Constitution that supports your opinion on this topic.

A person who is born in the United States, on the other hand, is a "natural born citizen" regardless of the status of that person's parents.

Begging the question. The customary usages and understandings at the time the Constitution was written do not support your claim.

Sandford disagrees with you, and I'll take his opinion over yours any day of the week.

That has not been definitively proven (otherwise there would be no basis for discussion) and the historical analysis in the CRS report contradicts your assertion.

Yes, the definition of "natural born citizen" is, in today's context, subject to differing opinions, but that doesn't mean that the meaning of the term has not been definitively proven. It merely means that some people do not wish to acknowledge the existing definitive proofs, largely because of political agendas and objections, and not because the term is at all legally unclear.

As the Congressional Research Report states, "the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century." It was indeed because of a political agendas that the issue was raised, and it's the Birthers who refuse to acknowledge the facts.

This dispute is a manufactured one, and it was manufactured back when Barack Obama's eligibility was brought into question.

See above.

The third qualification to be President is that one must be a "natural born Citizen" (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Although any citizen may become a Member of Congress so long as he has held citizenship for the requisite time period, to be President, one must be "a natural born Citizen." Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern. During the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote to George Washington, urging "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." Justice Story later noted that the natural-born–citizenship requirement "cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office."

Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President. As early as 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." 1 Stat. 104 (1790). The "natural born" terminology was dropped shortly thereafter. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c). But the question remains whether the term "natural born Citizen" used in Article II includes the parliamentary rule of jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of "citizen" in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born–citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship though jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.

[From "Presidential Eligibility" | The Heritage Guide to the Constitution]

In the highlighted text above note the plural used with respect to the parents of children born abroad. This is an important point because if you look closely you will find that in the vast majority of arguments about the citizenship status of children born abroad the authorities use the plural form in describing "parents", not "parent." As I said before, every word has meaning in statutes and if a legislature, including an English legislature, intended that "natural born citizenship" would inure to a child born of one citizen (or in the case of England a "subject") and one "alien" or "foreigner" with respect to children born outside of the soil of the nation, that would be made manifest as a modification of the "plain meaning" of the term "parents who are citizens/subjects".

The plural that is used in the cited act of 1790 is ambiguous, in that it could very well apply to any of the citizens (a citizen father married to a formerly resident non-citizen mother or vice-versa) to whom a child is born. What is not said is that both parents must be citizens. In fact, the sentence immediately preceding that quoted specifically uses the singular.

And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Here we see that only one parent need be naturalized for his or her children to be considered citizens. This idea can also be found in the citizenship bill for Virginia of 1779:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
[Emphasis mine]

Following the same principle, only one parent need be a citizen for their children to be considered "natural born."

Your argument appears to rest on Vattel, whose writing is certainly not definitive of American law, and selective interpretation of some quotes. If this were convincing to anybody but fellow Birthers, you and they would have long since won the day. You dismiss anything that disagrees with your position, but that doesn't make it disappear.

[Seth]

You are certainly aware that "rulings" in this context means decisions made in American courts, while "legislation" means laws written and passed by various legislatures. As I stated, Sandford's decision examines how the term is used in American legislation of his day, absent previous decisions ("rulings") made by any American judge in regard to the term. I have not stated that Sandford's decision is "some sort of ruling precedent" in regard to qualifications for the office of president. Rather, I cite his decision to show the thinking of a respected early American jurist whose knowledge of the laws of his time as well as his knowledge of the general understanding of those laws by the contemporary legal community can inform us as to what American jurisprudence of the period understood by the term "natural born citizen."

Actually, Sanford's decision does nothing of the kind. His decision examines whether or not a person born on US soil is a citizen entitled to inherit under US law and nothing else.

This is simply a display of willful obtuseness. In the process of deciding the case, Sandford does indeed examine how the term "natural born citizen" is used in American legislation of his day, and your "nuh UH" doesn't change that fact.

Sanford can examine his navel if he wishes and expound at length on the color of the lint therein and it will have as much value as a precedent as his exposition on the qualifications for being President. He comes 70 years late to the debate, which ended in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified.

His obiter dictum exegesis as a passing comment expressing his personal opinion on the meaning of "natural born citizen" with respect to qualification to be President is actually entirely unsupported by his own citations of past precedent and legislation and common-law usages of either the Founder's time or his own time.

Sandford was not trying to support his comment about qualifications for the office of President--it was an aside, and I've never said otherwise. What he was doing was supporting his decision in the case. You may disagree with his reasoning, but nobody cares what you think, while Sandford's decision in that case was cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Not with respect to the qualifications to be President it wasn't.

As I said before he very loosely and interchangeably uses "native" and "natural born" in the context of "born on US soil" in correctly determining that Julia Clarke was a citizen of the United States "by/at birth" and was therefore entitled to inherit. His tossing in of an unsupported opinion on who might be eligible to be President, regardless of the esteem in which you might hold him, does not actually reflect contemporary law either when the Constitution was written or 70 years later in a state chancery court. It provides no more useful information than any other person's bald statement of opinion because he tosses it out as his opinion, and says so, without actually examining in any way the distinction between "native" and "natural born" and the reasons why the Founders used "natural born" rather than "native" or some other language in writing the clause.

The reason that term was used is examined in the Congressional Research Service report. The finding of that report in regard to the meaning of "natural born citizen" agrees with Sandford, and I think the historical analysis it contains is much more reasonable than your attempts to support your own position. You "keep telling" me this and that, but your opinion conflicts with reliable sources, including Sandford. Your attempt to discount the thinking of a respected American jurist who was educated in American law in the early part of the 19th century as having no more relevance than "any other person's" is laughable.

The New York Times agrees too, but that's just as meaningless.

Sandford states that his duty is not to establish the rule of law but to ascertain a rule which has been in force from the era of the Federal Constitution, so he examines the usage in legislation of the term "natural born citizen" to show what is meant by that term. As stated above, in doing so Sandford provides a window into American legal thought of his time.

No, he doesn't.

Yes, he does. Try reading the decision. If you have read the decision, then you've apparently failed to comprehend what Sandford wrote. There is certainly no basis in denying that Sandford's decision is a clear statement of an American jurist's understanding of American law in the first part of the 19th century. Again, this decision has been cited by the Supreme Court of the United States, so while you may find it easy to dismiss, that is not the opinion of others.

I have read it. His decision is a clear statement on the qualification of Julia Clarke as a citizen of the United States entitled to inherit her uncle's property due to her being born on US soil, not a statement on her qualification to be President of the United States, which she was not. As to the Supreme Court, it cites many authorities but in specific contexts, which does not happen to include an examination of the qualification to be President. It MAY do so at some point, and at that point it may mention Sandford's opinions, but it will also necessarily mention all the OTHER evidence that refutes Sanford's opinion, if it even consider's Sanford's opinion at all given the fact that it was an opinion stated by a state chancery court judge in relation to a civil case about New York law.

He might have "provided a window" into his thinking, but his thinking post-dates the thinking of the Founders by two generations and is therefore of zero value as determinative of the original intent of the Founders, which can ONLY be found by reference to THEIR discussions and writings on the subject based upon THEIR knowledge and understanding of the relevant terms that preceded their decision to use those exact words. What Sandford thinks about it 70 years later is beyond irrelevant to the issue of proper constitutional interpretation.

Feel free to quote "THEIR discussions and writings on the subject" to support your assertions. I'm talking about unequivocal statements, not those that are open to more than one interpretation. I freely admit that I've been unable to find such, nor has anybody else. You'll be widely celebrated in Birther circles and famous nationwide if you can produce anything along those lines.

Well, that's the thing about "original intent," sometimes you don't have "unequivocal statements," all you have are inferences drawn based on the rules under which such questions are resolved which includes the "plain meaning" of the statute and the contemporary understandings of the authors and ratifiers of the law as to what that "plain meaning" and original intent actually is, given changes in the uses and understandings of language over long periods of time.

And sometimes you DO have "unequivocal statements" like "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that some people would today like to reinterpret for their own partisan political or social purposes.

I happen to agree with the majority of scholars who believe there is ambiguity that needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court. But what I do not agree with is your unwarranted reliance on the writings of a single state court judge in an unrelated case as being determinative of the issue, particularly in light of the substantial counterveiling evidence and, as it happens, a common-sense understanding of why the Founders would have rationally and thoughtfully constructed the passages as they did, given the historical context and contemporary concerns of a group of men who had just thrown off the yoke of tyranny and were determined not to let it happen again, and therefore resolved to do the best they could to make sure that only persons with completely loyalty to the United States held the office of President. This is an aspect of the debate you consistently ignore.

In the highlighted text above note the plural used with respect to the parents of children born abroad. This is an important point because if you look closely you will find that in the vast majority of arguments about the citizenship status of children born abroad the authorities use the plural form in describing "parents", not "parent." As I said before, every word has meaning in statutes and if a legislature, including an English legislature, intended that "natural born citizenship" would inure to a child born of one citizen (or in the case of England a "subject") and one "alien" or "foreigner" with respect to children born outside of the soil of the nation, that would be made manifest as a modification of the "plain meaning" of the term "parents who are citizens/subjects".

The plural that is used in the cited act of 1790 is ambiguous, in that it could very well apply to any of the citizens (a citizen father married to a formerly resident non-citizen mother or vice-versa) to whom a child is born. What is not said is that both parents must be citizens. In fact, the sentence immediately preceding that quoted specifically uses the singular.

And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Here we see that only one parent need be naturalized for his or her children to be considered citizens. This idea can also be found in the citizenship bill for Virginia of 1779:

Yes, a child of a naturalized person under 21 years of age is also naturalized as a citizen, but not a "natural born citizen." Only children born to "citizens" (plural) of the United States born outside of the US "shall be considered as natural born Citizens." There is no clearer distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" than this, and it explicitly states that BOTH PARENTS must be US citizens. This is confirmed by the passage, "Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:" Being a "resident" does not require that one be a "citizen," merely that one be a lawful resident alien admitted to the country with the permission of the government despite being an alien.

Thus, if a woman went to England, married an heir to the Crown of England who had never legally been a "resident" of the United States, birthed a child outside of the United States and then brought that child to the United States, that child would not be a citizen of the United States by virtue of birth to a US citizen mother. Such a child would have to be naturalized by rule of law to gain citizenship, and would NOT be a "natural born citizen" at all, ever, and therefor ineligible to be President.

Moreover, this provision prevents a child born to two US citizens where the father of the child is a US citizen but has never been a resident of the United States, from being a citizen at/by birth. This situation could arise for example if two citizen parents who were living abroad had a male child (who would be a citizen by virtue of his parent's citizenship) who grew up living abroad and was never a resident of the United States (excluding an Ambassador's child because embassy property is considered US soil) who later married another US citizen and had a child that was later brought to the US. This child would NOT be a citizen by/at birth despite the fact that both parents were US citizens because the father had never been a resident, and therefore that child would have to be naturalized and would be ineligible to be President.

Was Ted Cruz's Cuban expat father ever a legally-admitted "resident alien" in the United States at any time prior to Cruz's birth? I don't know, but if not Cruz himself is clearly NOT a "natural born citizen" because he was born in Canada, albeit to an American citizen mother, but to an alien father. So as we see, the Naturalization Act of 1795 ALSO imposed a "jus sanguinis" element as a determination of citizenship, and that's simple "at/by birth" citizenship, not "natural born citizenship."

This is yet another demonstration of the intent of the Founders to be very restrictive about who could hold the office of President. They included in that section BOTH a "jus soli" requirement AND a "jus sanguinis" requirement specifically to preclude children born of one citizen parent and one foreign parent, even if that parent was a legal resident alien, from being President.

You have to look at the logic of the section in addition to the words and discern what the Founders were trying to accomplish in using the specific words they used, and this includes looking at the OVERALL purpose of the section specifying the qualifications and powers of the President, which was NOT to allow anyone who might possibly be influenced by a foreign power through his or her parentage to hold that specific office. This must be viewed IN CONTEXT with the provisions for holding other important elective offices including Representatives and Senators. Ask yourself WHY the Founders used this specific language, not just what you think the language means in today's lexicon.

Note that there is NO "jus sanguinis" component to the qualifications to be either a Representative or a Senator. All that is required is that the individual be a citizen, either "at/by birth", "natural born" or even "naturalized," and meet the residency requirements for each office. This is yet more compelling evidence of the specific intent of the Founders with respect to the more stringent qualification to be President and the fact that there are THREE classifications of citizenship inherent in the construction of the Constitution: "natural born citizen," which is a person born to TWO citizen parents, either on US soil or abroad; "citizen" (or "native citizen"), which is a person born either on US soil or abroad to one citizen parent and a legal resident alien parent; and "naturalized citizen", which is a person born to two alien parents outside of the US, or a person born to one citizen parent and a non-resident alien FATHER born either in the US or abroad.

Looking at the entire construction of the legislative and executive branches and the different qualifications for each, it becomes clear that as applied to the presidency, the requirements are much more strict than for even a Senator or Representative, much less with respect to determinations of citizenship in general.

The reasons for this distinction are clearly stated by the Founders and carefully explicated in the actual language as they understood and intended it.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
[Emphasis mine]

Following the same principle, only one parent need be a citizen for their children to be considered "natural born."

Um, the Naturalization Act of 1790, which you cite here, was one of the first laws passed by Congress and it was the very first that was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 precisely because it was a poorly-written law that caused all sorts of problems, which is why it was quickly repealed.

Moreover, there is no mention in this (repealed) Act of "natural born citizen." Just "citizen."

Your argument appears to rest on Vattel, whose writing is certainly not definitive of American law, and selective interpretation of some quotes. If this were convincing to anybody but fellow Birthers, you and they would have long since won the day. You dismiss anything that disagrees with your position, but that doesn't make it disappear.

I dismiss that which is irrelevant to the original intent of the Founders, which is quite clear when the RELEVANT evidence contemporary to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution is carefully examined and rationally interpreted according to the canons of statutory construction and interpretation that held sway even at the time of the ratification and still hold sway today in our courts.

Ultimately however the Supreme Court should, and I suspect will, examine and rule conclusively on the matter and we shall see who is right and who is wrong.

[klr]

Oh dear, this is is going to run, and run, and run ... until the Supreme Court rules, and one way or another, that will start a whole new round of arguments.

[Seth]

Oh dear, this is is going to run, and run, and run ... until the Supreme Court rules, and one way or another, that will start a whole new round of arguments.

As it should. That's the essence of a free state; the ability to discuss such things free of the threat of censorship or government disapproval.

[Animavore]

There isn't a single Republican candidate who isn't a complete and utter tool. And as for Trump, if he wins it's the rest of the World's turn to invade America for once and overthrow the government and install our own puppet.

Sanders is the only worthy candidate.

I wouldn't say that -- Jeb Bush is not a tool. He was a very good, competent and successful Governor of Florida. Also, John Kasich of Ohio isn't bad. Chris Christie is o.k., too
I like Carly Fiorina too. Competent businessperson. Highly successful. Driven.

Sanders is an avowed Socialist. It's either his time, or he's just a decade premature. Socialism has already been sold to the under 40 crowd. It's only the 40+ folks that are holding it back. Capitalism is done in the US. The under 30 crowd has been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking socialism is good and kind and caring, and far better for the common person than capitalism. And, they view capitalism as greedy, survival of the fittest social darwinism.

Jeb Bush's attitude to climate change is to do nothing. That it will sort itself out. Even if not a complete tool, absolutely unfit for President at this crucial moment in history.

[pErvinalia]

Merkans don't believe in climate change. UN/Marxist conspiracy.

[Animavore]

Merkans don't believe in climate change. UN/Marxist conspiracy.

Jeb Bush seems to accept it (unlike the rest of the utter fuckwits vying for Presidency in the Republican party), he's just too wedded to freemarket fundamentalism, not to mention a shill for amoral corporations, to do anything.

Voting Republican is just not a moral choice right now. Vote for an independent is Sanders doesn't float your boat, but Republicans are a liability until they sort their house out.

[Tero]

The republican party has not changed any for decades. Which is understandable, they are conservatives, for them nothing changes. They completely ignore new things like the internet and gay marriage and "atheism."

[Animavore]

The republican party has not changed any for decades. Which is understandable, they are conservatives, for them nothing changes. They completely ignore new things like the internet and gay marriage and "atheism."

Atheism isn't new. It has to be equally as old as the first person made a claim to a god someone else didn't believe.

[Svartalf]

The republican party has not changed any for decades. Which is understandable, they are conservatives, for them nothing changes. They completely ignore new things like the internet and gay marriage and "atheism."

Actually, they Have changed in recent decades... up till the Nixon administration, they were still a fairly reasonable bunch, for all of being unlikeable. Since Reagan, they have grown increasingly crazy