Coulter: Cruz is not a natural born citizen

[Mechanicos]

Happy, happy, happy!

tRump seems to have become dead in the water, no power no rudder and enemy ships closing in fast.

As the old East Texas saying goes, "who knows from the road, what lies in the bushes", tRump may not be a real "sure thing".

Yeah, dead in the water with an easy walk to the 1237, and already neck to neck with Hillary nationally. Seems hes busy whipping the GOP party into shape now.

[DiogenesLamp]

I just wanted to point out that English common law as the default -- unless expressly contradicted -- is sort of a baseline of American legal jurisprudence.

Usage of the word "citizen"  is an expressed contradiction of the English common law as the source for it's meaning.    That word was essentially unknown to English law of the time.   It is not even an English word,  but instead comes to us from the French language.   


The word "Subject"  is the one that has the English common law pedigree.  (Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language,  1768)




  It was the normal and usual word used in the colonies up until about 1764.   Blackstone uses the word "Subject" too many times to count,  while he uses the word "Citizen"  three times, all to refer to the inhabitants of a City and not regarding the members of a nation. 


So why would we chose to use a word that the Father of English law (Blackstone) uses only three times,  and in such a manner as to mean something very different from how Blackstone used it? 

If the source of our meaning for "Member of a Nation"  was English common law,  then why didn't we continue using the word "subject"?   Why did we change,  and start using that French word?  

And it wasn't an accident.  Jefferson deliberately erased the word "Subject"  which he initially wrote into the Declaration of Independence,  and wrote over it the word "Citizen."   




I think it is straightforward that the English Common law derived term was deliberately ejected,   and this unusual (for the time)  "citizen"  word,   was put in it's place.    Had they intended to have it's meaning descend from the English common law,  they would have kept the usual and normal English word. 


Therefore,   the English Common law is expressly contradicted in this instance,  thus meeting the criteria you set out above. 

 

[txradioguy]

We didn't put enough salt on the grave.

Damned necro-threads.

Gotta burn them after you salt them.

[EtX]

Cruz needs to clear this up--without being clever or defensive. And he can't let talking heads or the Internet debate this endlessly.

If he wants this behind him, Cruz needs a legal judgment on his specific set of circumstances.

Maybe you should give us an outline of just how Cruz gets said Legal Judgment? Sue himself? Not sure even that would clear Standing, but then again maybe you are Champeen Imaginer. Look forward to how you think this would be done.

[DiogenesLamp]

1)  The Framers were all extremely familiar with the English system of national citizenship/subject, where Parliament drafted the laws governing who was a citizen/subject, who could vote, and who could hold office.  They also knew that Parliament changed those laws changed from time to time.

Not true.   In 1760 England,  the word "Citizen"  meant inhabitant of a City.   It did not mean the same thing as "Subject",   so no,  the founders had no experience with national "citizenship",   at least not deriving from any English sources.   

However,  the founders were well familiar with this word "Citizen"   coming from several Swiss sources,    (  Rousseau, Burlamaqui, Vattel,  etc)   but I haven't found too much usage of it from Locke,   Rutherford,  Lord Summers,  etc.    It seems the English writers of natural law tend to use the word "Subject"  far more than the word "Citizen."   

2)  Had they intended to change that, it seems logical that they would have included a clear, fixed definition of "natural born citizen" that brooked no ambiguity.  Or at the least, that they would have been careful to state their intent to vary from English law.  They did not.

Or maybe they thought that when they tossed out that English word which  they had all been using for several hundred years,   and substituted this relatively uncommon (for the time)  French word in it's place,   that everyone would understand they got the meaning of it from the Swiss sources who had used it in that manner since 1370? 


One might even say that this one particular Swiss writer of "natural law"  gave them the idea to create a new,  different type of country.   One similar to Switzerland,  which was the only Confederated Republic in the world at that time. 

This is what he wrote in 1757.   Caused a sensation over here,  it did.   

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

If he didn't put the idea directly into their heads,   he certainly predicted what they ought to do long before they thought about doing it.   (James Otis, "Rights of the British Colonists asserted and proved"  1764)   

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, this thread is old and musty, but let me reiterate something I said a few months back:

Just three years before the Constitution was written and ratified, in 1784, the state of Virginia bestowed on Gilbert du Motier, the marquis de Lafayette and a French national, the title of "natural born citizen." (This was at a time when states still handled many foreign affairs individually.) By the time Thomas Jefferson was President, he wrote to the marquis that he would have been eligible for federal posts had he not returned to France.

If we're talking about what a natural born citizen was at the time it was written, and what the founders meant by it, there is your answer. It is a meaningless phrase that can mean whatever the legislature wants it to mean.

It is from statements like this, lacking in  precision and accuracy,   that so many people are misled.    No,  they did not bestow upon him the title of "natural born citizen."   What they said was:


 


Quite a different thing than you alleged,  if you get down to the brass tacks.   

[Bigun]

BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES:


WITH

NOTES OF REFERENCE,

TO

THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS,

OF THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES;

AND OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

IN FIVE VOLUMES.

WITH AN APPENDIX TO EACH VOLUME,

CONTAINING

SHORT TRACTS UPON SUCH SUBJECTS AS APPEARED NECESSARY
TO FORM A CONNECTED
VIEW OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA,
AS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL UNION.

BY ST. GEORGE TUCKER,

PROFESSOR OF LAW, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WILLIAM AND MARY, AND
ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT IN VIRGINIA.

PHILADELPHIA:

PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM YOUNG BIRCH, AND ABRAHAM SMALL,
NO. 17, SOUTH SECOND-STREET.
ROBERT CARR, PRINTER.

1803.

St. George Tucker, the editor, says this in a footnote:

Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.

The work from which that is quoted was THE law book in every school of law in the United States for a VERY long time and is still in very wide use to this very day.

[DiogenesLamp]

[Bigun]

And you will get laughed out of court for citing Blackstone for anything but the most uncontroversial propositions.  It is a secondary source of the law.

Now yes! From 1803 till at least the late 1850's Not so much!

[Bigun]

It still was a secondary source, even then.

The best objective evidence of what the people who ratified the Constitution actually thought is to get as close to them in time as possible.  And the very first Congress actually passed a law expressly defining a "natural born citizen."  And that bill was signed into law by Washington himself.

So apparently, both the First Congress and Washington himself believed that Congress had the right to determine who was a natural born citizen.

I can't find a single instance of any founder ever contradicting him on the point I posted but perhaps you can cite one.

[DiogenesLamp]

The obvious reason for the substitution of the word "citizen" for "subject" is that there was no royal sovereign to be "subject" to.

Well Washington could have been one,   but he refused to accept that role,   but the word "citizen"  was used in 1776 before they had officially decided what sort of government they were going to have.   


This unusual and uncommon word for the time,   did not appear ex nihilo,   it had a very prominent source for it's grand entrance into American usage,   and this is the thing that other thinkers keep overlooking.   The normal word for that time period was "subject."   Had the English Law thing been the source of their intent,   they would have continued using that same word.

Your interpretation of that change as deliberately wiping out everything that applied to English "subjects" under the common law is directly contradicted by repeated citations by U.S. courts to English common law rights that by their own terms, applied to English subjects.

There is no question that there was legal inertia in the perceptions of the legal workers of the time.   I don't think most Lawyers or Judges of the time gave much thought to the philosophy behind the creation of the nation.   I think they simply regarded everything continuing pretty much the same as it was before,   so there was no real need for them to correct or change their thinking for the everyday matters of law with which they ordinarily dealt. 


I have examples of Lawyers,  Judges and Lawmakers citing Vattel as the source of their understanding on all things relating to citizenship,   and I have examples of others citing "English Common Law."    What Judges and Lawyers subsequently say on the matter is not nearly so important as what Delegates to the Convention or Ratifications have to say about it.    We have a pretty extensive modern history regarding the courts getting things completely wrong.   (Abortion,  Kelo,  "Gay Marriage",   etc.)   


But on this topic,  they had help in getting it wrong.  I have personally came to the conclusion that one prominent and influential lawyer (William Rawle) was intentionally and deliberately misleading people about this issue.    This issue is heavily bound up in the Slavery issue.   English common law offers support for abolition,  and Vattel does not.    People needing to believe a thing,  have a habit of deciding to believe that thing they need to believe.   

A new word was needed precisely because a Representative Republic without a sovereign didn't exist.  The concept of the two words is identical except for that one factor.  So we were no longer subjects of a king, but citizens.  That was the nature of the change.

So you are saying they completely overturned normal and universal usage of a commonly understood word,  (one written into virtually every legal document of the time)   because of a compulsion to avoid a trivial  inaccuracy?   Like they were grammar nazis or something? 


You overlook something.   Where did they even get this idea that they had a right to leave the King?     This idea certainly did not come to them from English common law.   This idea to leave,   and to use this new word "citizen" (which at the time meant "Townfolk" to English speaking peoples)    to describe themselves,    could not possibly have come from England.   It was in fact Treasonous from the English law point of view.   

But oddly enough,  it was exactly what this Swiss Republic philosopher of Natural law had suggested be done.     


So we have a clear path from Vattel to our form of government,   and no path at all from English law to our form of government,   yet we are to believe that all the characteristics of a "citizen"  are meant to be the exact same as a "subject".     Again,  English Law of the time was hardly even cognizant of the word,   yet it was the normal word when referring to members of the Swiss Republic,  and had been since 1370 when it is explicitly used in this manner in their "Priest's Charter"  of 1370.  (Founding Document) 

Eytomology of the word says it's French,   and that it's usage as "inhabitant of a country",   traces to the late 14th century.   (i.e. 1370,  when the Swiss "city states"  started using the word that way.)   

Cases cited on the issues of bail, habeaus corpus, and all sorts of other rights that existed under the common law, and had been applied only to British subjects ,were routinely incorporated into American law despite the fact that we were all "citizens".  And I'm unaware of a single case that actually turned on the distinctions between a "subject" and a "citizen".

I've already said the mundane aspects of English common law were continued.   Madison said the same thing.    It is those things about English law that were incompatible with the new foundational philosophy that were jettisoned,   first among them is the right to leave.   Expatriation was a concept not permitted to "subjects"   back in those days.   

So to toss out English law based on the change in that one word -- that again was simply reflecting the lack of a royal sovereign who ruled by right -- has no legal or historical support.  It's just an argument invented 200+ years after the fact.

And yet that French word,  and that Swiss usage of it have become adopted as our standard,  while the English word and the English usage which were previously the norm,   were not.    Coincidence?    Don't think so.   


If you look at our historical documents,   you will see "Subject",  "Subject", "Subject", "Subject" used over and over again,  with "Citizen"  not showing up in any degree until after 1760.  We changed our word,  yet you argue we had no intention of changing it's character?   That we intended a distinction without a difference?   


Why?   It is pointless to do such a thing.   If there is no distinction,  then why would they not simply continue using the same word that had always been used?   

[DiogenesLamp]

It still was a secondary source, even then.

The best objective evidence of what the people who ratified the Constitution actually thought is to get as close to them in time as possible.  And the very first Congress actually passed a law expressly defining a "natural born citizen."  And that bill was signed into law by Washington himself.

So apparently, both the First Congress and Washington himself believed that Congress had the right to determine who was a natural born citizen.

This is factually incorrect.   "Shall be considered as",  does not mean the same thing as "Is" .   The Naturalization act of 1790 considers the foreign born children of citizens as "natural born citizens"   if they do not have a foreign father.     The term "natural born citizen"  was removed by the subsequent naturalization act of 1795 and has never been used since.   

 There is also some evidence that those words were put in there by mistake,  and were not part of what was originally passed by congress.   

This document suggests it was one Congressman Edamus Burke of South Carolina that made the error instead of the clerk although it still may be a mistaken instruction to a clerk. I am still looking for the link to the contemporaneous notes of Congress with the actual text of the discussion. http://natural-borncitizens.com/nbcfiles/nbc_McElwee.pdf

Also,   within the conceptual framework of "natural law"  popular at the time,   it is contradictory to have a "naturalization act"   create a natural citizen.    It is an error in logic to do such a thing. 

[EtX]

If Cruz is indeed a "natural born citizen" although born in a foreign country to one citizen parent, how is it that we were all arguing that Barack Hussein O was NOT a natural born citizen if he had been born in Kenya to one citizen parent?  And if being born in Kenya versus the USA did not matter, why did OPapaDoc bother to produce a birth cert?

Having said all that this is obviously a moot point since no one who has standing to sue, will sue?  Or will they?  It is one thing not to sue over the election of the first black POTUS.  But can we be sure that every trial lawyer turned attorney general in every nutball state will resist the temptation to sue a duly elected "right wing flame thrower?"

Firstly, nobama's NBC issue was not where he was born, rather that his mother did not qualify to confer NBC to her child. At the time she was not old enough to meet the law.

Secondly, please tell us what you see as necessary to have Standing to bring any such suit on Cruz NBC? I contend that only one that has BEEN harmed by his running and or election has Standing. Until he is POTUS can he cause said harm and then here comes Catch 22, once a person is sworn in as POTUS the only recourse is impeachment.

[Mechanicos]

That's an interesting question.

There are some issues that, by the time they reach higher courts, will already be resolved.  Abortion is one example of this.  A pregnant woman who wishes to have an abortion but is prevented by law will already have given birth long before her case makes it to the Supreme Court.  So, the Courts have adopted an special form of standing that permits such claims to be maintained even if the result will no longer affect the plaintiff in question.

This whole NBC debate is one of those issues because the election will always be over before the case ever reaches the Supreme Court.  So, this may be one of those issues that keeps getting pushed up even though Cruz is (for all practical purposes) no longer a candidate, precisely because it is one of those issues likely to be repeated that otherwise cannot be resolved.

Actually, the game plan was to get an Injunction late in October then the 4-4 court would dead lock leaving the injunction in place. Easy to do with the Liberal federal judges the Democrats control.

[Sanguine]

Actually, the game plan was to get an Injunction late in October then the 4-4 court would dead lock leaving the injunction in place. Easy to do with the Liberal federal judges the Democrats control.

Who's plan?  Trump's?

[Bigun]

The entire first Congress plus George Washington contradicted him when they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790.  And a historian's opinion of what the law is does not become valid simply because nobody in authority chose to write down a criticism.

And just what the hell do you think St. George Tucker was talking about when he said what I quoted earlier if not that precisely!

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,190577.msg874845.html#msg874845

I am disinclined to argue any further on this thread. I have made my case and any reader can draw his own conclusions. 

I also doubt that SCOTUS will ever weigh in on the matter.

[Mechanicos]

Who's plan?  Trump's?

The Democrats, its low hanging fruit.

[DCPatriot]

Debating Cruz' citizenship status is tantamount to debating if stronger welds could have saved the Titanic from breaking in two.

[DiogenesLamp]

Debating Cruz' citizenship status is tantamount to debating if stronger welds could have saved the Titanic from breaking in two.

You would think so but for the fact this issue interacts very heavily with the "Anchor Baby"  issue.    This is not really about Cruz,  it is about a conceptual understanding of an important point.   The issue goes far beyond Cruz,  and still affects us in the present. 


To suggest this is all "stuff in the past"   that has no further impact on us is just wrong. 


It has impact,  and in near history and real time.   Obama would not have been allowed to become President had people kept the correct understanding of the point.    I personally do not consider him to be a legitimate president,  because he is *NOT*  a "natural born citizen"  according to the understanding of that term in 1787.   I think it is worthwhile to keep reminding people that he is an illegitimate bastard of a President,  and should not be  considered by history to be a *real*  President.   


We would not also have a "birth tourism"  industry flourishing with thousands of people traveling into the country to have "American"  babies while possessing no loyalty to this nation at all. 


We are being forced to accept immigrations that we would not ordinarily permit,  because of the "Anchor Baby" hook.   


Nobody wants to make a fuss over this issue because it's just so much easier to go with the flow.    I read an article today along those lines.   I had heard the premise before,  and considered it profound. 


Yes,  it is the failure to fight the small fights which is at the root of many of our societal problems. 

[EtX]

Yeah, dead in the water with an easy walk to the 1237, and already neck to neck with Hillary nationally. Seems hes busy whipping the GOP party into shape now.

Pray tell us who has 1237? There is no 1237 until the delegates at the convention are counted. tRump may hit a brick wall, tRump may proclaim that he's proven his point and never really cared about such a demanding job to begin with (hopefully before we get into the General and then throws it to his dear friend hitlery).

[DCPatriot]

You would think so but for the fact this issue interacts very heavily with the "Anchor Baby"  issue.    This is not really about Cruz,  it is about a conceptual understanding of an important point.   The issue goes far beyond Cruz,  and still affects us in the present. 


To suggest this is all "stuff in the past"   that has no further impact on us is just wrong. 


It has impact,  and in near history and real time.   Obama would not have been allowed to become President had people kept the correct understanding of the point.    I personally do not consider him to be a legitimate president,  because he is *NOT*  a "natural born citizen"  according to the understanding of that term in 1787.   I think it is worthwhile to keep reminding people that he is an illegitimate bastard of a President,  and should not be  considered by history to be a *real*  President.   


We would not also have a "birth tourism"  industry flourishing with thousands of people traveling into the country to have "American"  babies while possessing no loyalty to this nation at all. 


We are being forced to accept immigrations that we would not ordinarily permit,  because of the "Anchor Baby" hook.   


Nobody wants to make a fuss over this issue because it's just so much easier to go with the flow.    I read an article today along those lines.   I had heard the premise before,  and considered it profound. 


Yes,  it is the failure to fight the small fights which is at the root of many of our societal problems.

Thank you so much for taking the time to give a detailed reply.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.  But we have plenty of time for him to get it settled by 2020. 

Cause it doesn't add to his votes going into Cleveland.  He needs to call for a private one on one with The Donald.

Just him, Trump and Mr. Trump's Consigliere.     

Time to kiss and make up.

I predicted this was going to happen but gave it till the weekend.  It's not even Friday and they're lining up.   Geez...even Boehner.

You watch FoxNews today and they're in love with him.

That YouTube video of Megyn Kelly with Eric Trump had the highly produced graphics as the video played....always showing the Trump Family as Mr. and Mrs. America.

I plead with everyone to get the Windex, clean your lenses.  Literally and figuratively.

Trump appears so presidential, it's a jolt even to me.   He appears totally in command.

[DiogenesLamp]

Bigun, I have read Vattel in the past, and it still doesn't negate the point that if the FFs thought it was an important term, they would have defined it.

Unless they thought it was so obvious that there was no need to define it.   

In the World of 1775,  all the nations of the world (except one)  were Monarchies.    The normal term to describe a member of a Monarchy was "Subject".     In France it was "Sujet",  which means "subject."   


There was only one nation in the world which used a different term.  It was République des Suisses, Res publica Helvetiorum.  (Swiss Republic) 




   They did not use the word "subject"  there,  they used the word "Citoyen",  which is French for "Citizen."    In the ordinary French of the time,  it meant "City Dweller."   In Switzerland it meant member of the Swiss Confederacy.  (Because it was made up of 8 allied cities.)   Their founding document initiates this usage in 1370


If you read the online etymology for "Citizen",  you will note it's modern usage began in the later part of the 14th century.   (1370 exactly fits)   



So why would the founders deliberately eschew the common and universally used word "Subject"   and replace it with a word that was little used, and that did not mean "member of a nation"  in English,  but which did mean that in the Swiss version of French?   


Why was this Swiss meaning being substituted for the good old English term "Subject"?   


Why,  when writing the Declaration of Independence,   did Jefferson deliberately erase the universally used word "subject"  and substitute the rarely used word "Citizen" ? 



@Bigun

[Bigun]

Firstly, nobama's NBC issue was not where he was born, rather that his mother did not qualify to confer NBC to her child. At the time she was not old enough to meet the law.

Secondly, please tell us what you see as necessary to have Standing to bring any such suit on Cruz NBC? I contend that only one that has BEEN harmed by his running and or election has Standing. Until he is POTUS can he cause said harm and then here comes Catch 22, once a person is sworn in as POTUS the only recourse is impeachment.

Right! It doesn't make a damned bit of different where he was born because his fater was a British subect at tge time and that made his son one as well.  End of story!

[Frank Cannon]

Right! It doesn't make a damned bit of different where he was born because his fater was a British subect at tge time and that made his son one as well.  End of story!

Dear God man. Did you just light the candle on this worthless thread after 2 years?

Was it an accident or are you loaded on scotch?

[DiogenesLamp]

Dear God man. Did you just light the candle on this worthless thread after 2 years?

Was it an accident or are you loaded on scotch?

I guess you missed the fact that I did it.