Saturday, 14 March 2015

Further On Setting Things To Rights

(cont’d from Tea Party C.C.: ‘Legal duo says Cruz eligible to seek presidency’ - posted Mar. 13) 

(in Reply to my comment:)..
Permalink Reply by Patricia Eden 2 hours ago (Mar. 14)

Stan, Please read the following, there are quotes from the Constitution that clearly indicate that Ted is indeed ELIGIBLE!::

Now that Ted Cruz is running for office, a number of people are popping up, claiming he is not eligible to be President.

It is an important question.

Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President?

The Constitution of the United States is very specific.  No one but a “natural born citizen” may become President.  That mercifully spares us from people like Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

But what is a natural born citizen?

The Constitution is silent on a definition of a natural born citizen.  Those who attack Cruz as not being eligible and even those who make the same attack on Obama, like to cite an 18th century text and a couple of Supreme Court decisions.

There is a specific hierarchy that is used in determining the meaning of provisions in the Constitution.  The hierarch goes like this.   First we look within the pages or as attorneys like to say, within the four corners of the document for a meaning.  If there is no definition there, then we look to Congressional statutes and then to court decisions.

In 1790, the Congress answered the question about Natural Born Citizens with the Naturalization Act.  The Act reads in part:

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.

There is the definition right there.

Children born abroad whose mothers are United States citizens and whose fathers have resided in the United States are considered natural born citizens.

This act was introduced in Congress in 1790.  That was three years after the Constitution was drafted.  If that definition of a natural born citizen is not accurate, the men who wrote the Constitution a mere three years earlier would have stood and said something about it.

Since some of those men were in Congress, it is unlikely such a bill would have passed at all.
Ted Cruz Smile AP.jpg

The facts in the case of Ted Cruz, unlike that of Barack Obama, are not shrouded in mystery.  Cruz was born of an American mother and though his father was not an American citizen at the time, he had resided in the United States.

That makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen.


Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (Mar. 14)

Dear Patricia,

Nothing trumps intention.  The intention of the constitutional Framers on this issue is very clear: the candidate must not have any DUAL OR CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES.  He must therefore not be a DUAL CITIZEN at birth.
The constitutional Framers were perfectly clear as to what they meant by the term 'natural born citizen'.  It came, legalistically, from E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law'.  And if they didn't know what they were voting for, all they would have had to do was ask their learned and respected elder, Benjamin Franklin, sitting right there in the discussions as one of them, who had 3 copies of said book - AND a copy of it was ALSO in the library of the building in which they were meeting (the Pennsylvania State House, which we call Independence Hall). 

Do not demean those wise and earnest gentlemen, who were trying to set something entirely new at sea among the ships of nation states - a grand experiment in self-governance.  Which Constitutional contract also allowed for its amendment, as times and details of life changed.  No such amendment has come forth to change their wisdom on this particular subject.  Indeed, modern characters in the drama tried a total 8 times between 2003 and 2008 to get an amendment going through Congress on this very issue - and it failed even to get out of committee each time, so sensitive of an issue was it.  So TPTB obviously did a backroom  deal: 'We won't say anything about your candidate if you won't say anything about anybody that we might wish to put up for the office in the future.'  And therein hangs their sorry fate.

I will leave those details up to a - legitimate; not Admiralty Law - court to ferret out.  In the meantime, I will not break faith with the Founding Fathers of this nation, and its rule of law; which means its Constitution.  And I urge you not to do so either, in the sophistic attempts being made to get around this issue, just because of a desirable candidate.  TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.

Obama must go.  And Cruz could put the final nail in his coffin if he came out and admitted to the INTENTIONAL DEFINITION of the term in question.  That would queer his attempt at the office (the Constitution bars ex post facto laws).  But it would do a world of good, in helping the world get to living by Truth.  Not falsity.  As it [is] doing, too much so, at present.  Case very much in point.


Stan, what Law School did you graduate from?
I learned to read, and comprehend, English a long time ago, Ray.
Also to recognize expediency when I see it    

There is a hell of a lot of difference between the ability to read and comprehend than it is to interpret the law and that is what you, as well as others, are doing. 
And 'interpreting' the law, as opposed to sticking strictly to INTENTION, is what has landed this country in such deep-doo, Ray. Saying, in other words: tyranny.

I'll stick with the constitutional Framers.  If you can show me where the Constitution was amended to let less than a 'natural born' citizen hold the presidential office, I'll be happy to look at it. And yes, I have already looked at those 8 attempts between 2003 and 2008 to get such an amendment going through Congress.  Oops.  Never even made it out of committee.  Well, back to the drawing board.

Not the backroom deal.  

Reply by Victoria T. DeLacy 3 hours ago

Twice the topic was discussed on Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Rising newsletter and both times the conclusion was that he is indeed eligible to run.  Ted Cruz was born in Canada but that is a nation where it is the citizenship of the mother that is given to the baby and his mother was born here in Delaware.  His father is a naturalized American citizen.  Due to the location of his birth, Senator Cruz technically was born with dual citzenship but he is in the process of dropping the Canadian citizenship and once that has been accomplished there should be nothing left to stand in the way of his running for the Presidency and being elected to help America back onto a restorative rightward path.  Run, Ted, RUN!  His 23+ hour stand on the floor of the Senate speaking out against Obama-non-Care proved to me that he is a man of action on behalf of "We the People" and that is precisely the caliber of patriot that America desperately needs and who this voter will be delighted to support for the Presidency next year!


Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 18 seconds ago


With all due respect: A "natural born" citizen, which rules out a naturalized citizen OR A DUAL CITIZEN, cannot change its birth status, only ASPECTS OF its birth status.  If it chooses to cease being a dual citizen, that it is its prerogative; but that DOES NOT CHANGE THE BIRTH STATUS.

If Congress wants to try to get an amendment started to change the law of the land - which is the Constitution; not subsequent shenanigans regarding it - it can go for it.  But you don't seem to understand law.  You can't just make a ewe a bull.  Now I grant you, sophists over the years, and especially in our days, have attempted to do just that.  As Nancy Pelosi, e.g., has attempted.  But if you don't want fleas, don't lie down with dogs.  Male or female.  

No comments: