Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 8138
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#926

Post by Estiveo » Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:06 pm

spiduh wrote:I didn't see anywhere in there where Cruz questioned Obama's eligibility, did I miss something? Clearly he interprets the Constitution to the benefit of Ted Cruz at all times, but we knew that.
No, you missed nothing, there is nothing in that article to back up Fortinbras' assertion. But you're still sorta new, so maybe you don't know how this usually works. ;)

The only thing I've ever seen put out there as Cruz denying Obama's eligibility is a long debunked Facebook meme that was making the rounds again last week.
Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
ProudObot
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:46 pm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#927

Post by ProudObot » Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:22 pm

Estiveo's right. Go back only one page spiduh and you'll see it all.

Also, too, welcome to the Fogow, the bestest place to be. :dance:

User avatar
Gnarly Goat
Posts: 2021
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:19 pm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#928

Post by Gnarly Goat » Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:14 pm

Fortinbras wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fortinbras wrote:I will admit that Cruz himself presented arguments (against Obama) which he now has to dial back . . .
Do you have a link to that? I am unfamiliar with Cruz ever arguing President Obama's ineligibility.
Well, there's Lawrence Tribe's article in the Boston Globe on Jan. 11th 2016 .....
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html
... which was much discussed in this very thread on that day (on my display it's on page 19, the messages for 1/11/2016).
:bangwall:
"Don't waste time mourning. Organize." - Joe Hill

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44874
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#929

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:33 pm

Fortinbras wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fortinbras wrote:I will admit that Cruz himself presented arguments (against Obama) which he now has to dial back . . .
Do you have a link to that? I am unfamiliar with Cruz ever arguing President Obama's ineligibility.
Well, there's Lawrence Tribe's article in the Boston Globe on Jan. 11th 2016 .....
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html
... which was much discussed in this very thread on that day (on my display it's on page 19, the messages for 1/11/2016).
Not. Even. Close.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12689
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#930

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:08 pm

spiduh wrote: I didn't see anywhere in there where Cruz questioned Obama's eligibility, did I miss something? Clearly he interprets the Constitution to the benefit of Ted Cruz at all times, but we knew that.
Well, imagine that, a lawyer construing the law to his own best interests. Shocking, I tell you shocking. :rotflmao:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#931

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:44 am

Fortinbras wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:What canon of statutory interpretation does that fall under?
Oddly enough, not statutory construction because the canons relating to statutes permit ignoring what would seem to be redundant or misleading words (not many examples of that, but it's in the books), and with constitutional construction no word can be ignored but they will try to conjure an interpretation that avoids complications.
First, you are dodging the question. You said that "the Constitutional requirement for natural born is obsolete and therefore should be interpreted in the least inconveniencing manner possible." Assuming that there is a known canon of constitutional construction that permits "conjur[ing] an interpretation that avoids complications," how does "interpret in 'least inconveniencing' manner" under a canon that avoids complications? I would think that such a structure could cause complications, particularly in cases where the "least inconveniencing manner" falls farthest from the plain meaning.

Second, in light of the famed canon stating that statutes (and the Constitution) are to be interpreted so as to avoid surplussage, I'd be very interested to see an academic reference or caselaw that explains when the canons permit ignoring apparently redundant language.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
spiduh
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:00 pm
Location: Zuckerman farm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#932

Post by spiduh » Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:47 am

ProudObot wrote:Estiveo's right. Go back only one page spiduh and you'll see it all.

Also, too, welcome to the Fogow, the bestest place to be. :dance:
Ah yes, I'm beginning to see. And thanks!
“If they kill me, grab my phone.” –Ammon Bundy (Reuters)
"Yes, I Did Turn the Flying Monkeys Loose!" -Anna von Reitz (FB)
"I 'Self Identify' as a female" -Jon Ritzheimer (FB)

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#933

Post by Fortinbras » Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:12 am

Looking at my old copy of the Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws by Henry Campbell Black, (Minn., West Publ., 2nd ed. 1911), I see sections devoted to the "Presumption against inconvenience" and "presumption against aburdity" as well as "rejection of surplusage".

Maybe this doesn't persuade you. I will still point out that there are a bunch of GOOD lawyers who think that Cruz is eligible.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#934

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:54 pm

Fortinbras wrote:Looking at my old copy of the Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws by Henry Campbell Black, (Minn., West Publ., 2nd ed. 1911), I see sections devoted to the "Presumption against inconvenience" and "presumption against aburdity" as well as "rejection of surplusage".

Maybe this doesn't persuade you. I will still point out that there are a bunch of GOOD lawyers who think that Cruz is eligible.
You have posted two section headings from a century-old book, accompanied those section headings with literally no explanation of how either of them is defined in the book, added literally no actual argument or analysis of how those (utterly undefined) phrases apply to the circumstances of Cruz's birth, and topped the whole thing off with a blatant appeal to authority.

Why on earth would someone think that might fail to persuade me?

Yes, there are quite a few good lawyers who think Cruz is eligible, including several who post here. Virtually all of them are much better lawyers than I am, much more experienced, and quite a bit smarter. There are also quite a few non-lawyers here who think Cruz is eligible, and many of them are much smarter than me. I enjoy and benefit from discussions with them on lots of topics, including this one, because they engage in thoughtful discussion of the issues.

Turning toward your latest post:

To begin with, while you mention the presumption against absurdity, you don't actually explain why the conclusion is absurd. Without the explanation, you haven't presented an argument; you've just dressed "I win because I win" up in nice language, and hoped nobody would notice. If you want to provide that explanation, I promise that I will carefully consider every point you raise. In the absence of such an explanation, I see no reason to take that assertion seriously.

If you do chose to provide that explanation, it might be helpful if you keep in mind that the book you just cited restricts absurdities to interpretations that are "so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to be within the intention of men of ordinary intelligence and discretion." The book goes on to provide, as an example of an appropriate use of the presumption, reading a statute that states that the "width" of the macadam on a turnpike be not less than 8 inches and not more than 15 inches as referring to the depth of the road material, not the shoulder-to-shoulder width of the road.

Turning to the presumption against inconvenience, I found the material on it to be quite interesting, particularly since I hadn't heard of it before. The book you cited is not entirely clear on the meaning, but it seems that the presumption is to interpret statutes to avoid "inconvenience, hardship, or public injury." That might be applicable, but there are a few reasons I'm not yet convinced. First, I'm not entirely sure that any of the plausible interpretations of the NBC clause would create more inconvenience or public injury than any other. The risks/potential injuries are not always the same, but there are some for all the explanations. Second, and (at least for me more of a concern), this still leaves the matter of the inclusion of "natural born citizen" in the first immigration act and its removal from the second act.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5394
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#935

Post by magdalen77 » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:23 pm

Based on what I've read on this and other threads I've changed my own belief from "yes, Cruz is a NBC" to "maybe not". I'd love to see an actual competent attorney argue it in court. Unfortunately it seems like the usual nitwits are doing the ballot challenges.

User avatar
spiduh
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:00 pm
Location: Zuckerman farm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#936

Post by spiduh » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:44 pm

Off Topic
Am I the only one that reads this as "Rafael Edward "Fellatio" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility" every time I see it?

Just checking.

*Yes I realize he went by Felito as a child. But still. The mind sees what the mind sees.
“If they kill me, grab my phone.” –Ammon Bundy (Reuters)
"Yes, I Did Turn the Flying Monkeys Loose!" -Anna von Reitz (FB)
"I 'Self Identify' as a female" -Jon Ritzheimer (FB)

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 8138
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#937

Post by Estiveo » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:55 pm

spiduh wrote:
Off Topic
Am I the only one that reads this as "Rafael Edward "Fellatio" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility" every time I see it?

Just checking.

*Yes I realize he went by Felito as a child. But still. The mind sees what the mind sees.
:lol: You are not alone. :lol:
Image Image Image Image Image

qbawl
Posts: 531
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:58 pm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#938

Post by qbawl » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:37 pm

Estiveo wrote:
spiduh wrote:
Off Topic
Am I the only one that reads this as "Rafael Edward "Fellatio" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility" every time I see it?

Just checking.

*Yes I realize he went by Felito as a child. But still. The mind sees what the mind sees.
:lol: You are not alone. :lol:
:yeah: Far from alone, I'm sure!

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15756
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#939

Post by Reality Check » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:00 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Completely misses the point of this thread. Rogers v. Bellei establishes that, as a matter of law, jus sanguinis citizenship is not impelled by any constitutional principle but is entirely a creature of statute which can be withheld at the whim of Congress. Jus sanguinis citizenship, according to case law, results from a naturalization process. As a result, a jus sanguinis citizen cannot be a natural born citizen.
You are assuming that citizens by statute cannot be natural born citizens. I don't think it is clear that is the case. The authors of the Constitution would have understood that "natural born subjects" under British law included both those born on the soil and subjects born abroad to British subjects who were natural born via act of Parliament. Is it not reasonable to conclude that the use of the term natural born citizen by the authors would have included both? The terms natural born citizen and natural born subject were used interchangeably until at least the time of the Constitution. There is no record that the meaning of the term was changed when it was included in the Constitution in the presidential eligibility section. I believe that you have to make the case that there is a class of "born citizens" who are not natural born. I haven't seen that case convincingly made yet.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44874
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#940

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:12 pm

The authors of the Constitution would have understood that "natural born subjects" under British law included both those born on the soil and subjects born abroad to British subjects who were natural born via act of Parliament.
I don't believe that's the case. Do you have a cite?

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12689
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#941

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:39 pm

spiduh wrote:
Off Topic
Am I the only one that reads this as "Rafael Edward "Fellatio" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility" every time I see it?

Just checking.

*Yes I realize he went by Felito as a child. But still. The mind sees what the mind sees.
I really try hard not to, but some things are just inevitable and unstoppable. Freudian something or other?????
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15756
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#942

Post by Reality Check » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:40 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote: I don't believe that's the case. Do you have a cite?
British Nationality Act of 1730
[A]ll Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively ... are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.[
Plantaion Act of 1740
[A]ll persons born out of the legience of His Majesty, His Heirs, or Successors, who have . . . or shall inhabit or reside for . . . seven years or more in any of His Majesty’s colonies in America . . . shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be His Majesty’s natural-born subjects of this Kingdom.
Blackstone wrote in 1765
But by several more modern statutes ... all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12689
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#943

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:48 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
The authors of the Constitution would have understood that "natural born subjects" under British law included both those born on the soil and subjects born abroad to British subjects who were natural born via act of Parliament.
I don't believe that's the case. Do you have a cite?
I don't think the issue has ever come up in court that I ever remember hearing about.

I have to agree with Realist here though, if we are going to accept the USSC ruling that Natural Born Citizen goes back to Natural Born Subjects under the common law of England, which would have INCLUDED the statutes passed prior to our independence, then we have to take the whole thing part and parcel, and they considered children born beyond the shores of England regardless of where to English SUBJECTS to be Natural Born Subjects. Blame it on Coke I believe it is who got the blame for the USSC claim to common law.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#944

Post by Foggy » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:51 pm

3/21/2016 - RC wins the Internet
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44874
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#945

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:59 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote: I don't believe that's the case. Do you have a cite?
British Nationality Act of 1730
[A]ll Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively ... are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.[
Plantaion Act of 1740
[A]ll persons born out of the legience of His Majesty, His Heirs, or Successors, who have . . . or shall inhabit or reside for . . . seven years or more in any of His Majesty’s colonies in America . . . shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be His Majesty’s natural-born subjects of this Kingdom.
Blackstone wrote in 1765
But by several more modern statutes ... all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
Well, the United States did not adopt those statutes. The British common law did not make them natural born. Likewise, the current U.S. statutes don't make them natural born, either.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44874
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#946

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:00 pm

Foggy wrote:3/21/2016 - RC wins the Internet
Nope. The closest the U.S. came was the 1790 Naturalization Act. Repealed as to natural born status in 1795.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#947

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:01 am

Reality Check wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:Completely misses the point of this thread. Rogers v. Bellei establishes that, as a matter of law, jus sanguinis citizenship is not impelled by any constitutional principle but is entirely a creature of statute which can be withheld at the whim of Congress. Jus sanguinis citizenship, according to case law, results from a naturalization process. As a result, a jus sanguinis citizen cannot be a natural born citizen.
You are assuming that citizens by statute cannot be natural born citizens. I don't think it is clear that is the case. The authors of the Constitution would have understood that "natural born subjects" under British law included both those born on the soil and subjects born abroad to British subjects who were natural born via act of Parliament. Is it not reasonable to conclude that the use of the term natural born citizen by the authors would have included both? The terms natural born citizen and natural born subject were used interchangeably until at least the time of the Constitution. There is no record that the meaning of the term was changed when it was included in the Constitution in the presidential eligibility section. I believe that you have to make the case that there is a class of "born citizens" who are not natural born. I haven't seen that case convincingly made yet.
I apologize for the length of this post. I think the legal reasoning is relatively straightforward, but the background facts do need some explaining.

I think that the founders (or at least those with adequate legal training) would have been understood "natural born subject" in about the same way that adequately-trained English lawyers would have: there are those who are natural born by operation of common law, and those who are natural born by operation of statute. I think this view is supported by both English caselaw of the time, and by the language used in the 1790 Naturalization Act, which largely tracked English statutory practice in the same area. In English practice, while natural born status could be conferred by both common law and statute, and while language was used interchangeably to refer to both, the two were not absolutely identical in all regards.

As a starting point, I think all of us are agreed that children born within the territorial jurisdiction of the sovereign are natural born citizens under the common law. (If there's an Aputzian here, please speak now or forever hold your peace.) I think it's also clear that English statutes dating back several centuries were consistent in conferring natural born status on those born abroad to citizen parents. Based on that, I don't think the founders would have had a problem with the idea that natural born citizenship could be conferred by statute on the children of citizens born abroad. If they had, they would probably not have included just such language in the 1790 act.

Given this, and given the removal of the "natural born" language in the 1795 naturalization act, the question for me is no longer whether the founders would have accepted that natural born status could be conferred on children of citizens born abroad by statute. Instead, the primary question is whether the founders would have viewed the children of citizens born abroad as natural born citizens in the absence of a statute conferring natural born citizenship. There's also the related question, of course, of whether there were any practical implications at the time to the question of whether such citizenship was part of the common law, or conferred by statute.

Surprisingly, it seems that there actually was reason at the time to care whether the citizenship status of those born abroad was purely statutory, or based in common law - at least for those concerned with the laws of inheritance as applied to large estates. Modern law has done away with the "fee tail," which is a form of landownership that keeps land in a single family by making it very difficult (if not impossible) for the current holder to sell the property instead of passing it on to the next generation via inheritance. Under the common law, aliens could not inherit land, which lead to cases where the citizenship of the claimant to a fee tail inheritance was fairly intensely litigated.

One such example that I've found is the 1763 House of Lords case of Leslie v. Grant. In this case, the question was whether the grandson of a natural-born subject of England was an alien and therefore incapable of inheriting estates when his father was also born overseas (and therefore out of the jurisdiction of the sovereign). This case involved fairly complex fee tail estate that was structured to keep two sets of land separate, and under the control of different branches of the family. The case came to the courts when the overseas-born father succeeded to both estates. Despite his overseas birth, there was no doubt that the father would be the proper heir, were it not for the provision keeping the two estates from falling into one set of hands. The second estate therefore had to go to the next heir in line, and the question became whether foreign-born father's foreign-born son could inherit.

If the overseas-born father was a common-law natural born subject, his son would also be a natural born subject, and so on. The court held that the son was not a natural born subject, with one Law Lord specifically noting that the naturalization statues dating back to Edward were not declaratory of the common law. The court then proceeding to examine the issue under statutes, and found that while the father was entitled to be treated as a natural born subject by operation of statute, the statutes could not be read so broadly as to allow his son to also be treated as such. The concern of the judges (and I do have to give Fortinbras a bit of a hat tip here) was that such a reading would work "inconveniences" because "it would let in all sorts of persons into the family rights, Jews, French, &c., without any test or qualification - without any residence." So even though the statute gave the father all the rights of a natural born citizen, it didn't make his son a natural born citizen.

I think that's a case that at least some of the lawyers would have been aware of when the Constitution was being drafted, and it's a case that shows that there was a real distinction between natural born under common law, and natural born by statute. (A common law natural born citizen could always pass on natural born citizenship; a statutory natural born citizen could not.) And, while the reasons for the distinction were xenophobically expressed, there was a real policy reason for the distinction: barring the second or third generation born abroad be from inheriting estates simply because they were the "correct" heirs in a fee tail scheme, despite their lack of any meaningful connection with the country or the land. (In modern times this issue has largely evaporated due to changes in the language of citizenship statutes and the effective abolition of fee tail, but it was certainly a live issue in the mid-18th Century.)

When you take the English caselaw, and add in the 1st Congress' drafting of a statute that largely mirrored English statutory practice, I think there's a fairly compelling case that the founders did view natural born citizens as being the equivalent to English natural born subjects. However, that view requires a statute to make those born abroad natural born citizens - and while they passed just such a statute in 1790, the "natural born" language was removed in 1795.

And it's that 1795 law that remains the primary sticking point for me. Everything I've seen indicates that natural born citizenship could be extended to the children of citizens born abroad through statute. However, everything I've seen also indicates that at the time the Constitution was drafted, natural born citizenship could only be extended to the citizens born abroad through statute - and the statute that did so was repealed in 1795.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12186
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#948

Post by Whatever4 » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:24 am

There is nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, where the nuances of the term "natural born" are more thoroughly dissected than here, in our forum, TheFogbow Court.

Quite interesting, Future Justice MikeDunford. Also makes sense that what works in Generation 1 (born abroad of native born parents) gets more restrictions in Generation 2.
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:
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#949

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:36 am

Whatever4 wrote:There is nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, where the nuances of the term "natural born" are more thoroughly dissected than here, in our forum, TheFogbow Court.

Quite interesting, Future Justice MikeDunford. Also makes sense that what works in Generation 1 (born abroad of native born parents) gets more restrictions in Generation 2.
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:
And nowhere where important points and documents are crowdsourced to the fore more quickly.

When I was writing the prior post, I considered the existence of the 1790 and 1795 acts, but I hadn't given much thought to the text. Seeing it there, though, I think the precise wording provides a bit more support to the idea that the members of the First Congress that drafted the naturalization law were aware of Leslie v. Grant - the law as drafted avoids the major area of uncertainty identified in that case. (And/or a couple of other similar inheritance/citizenship cases that were litigated in England during the mid-18th Century.)
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15756
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rafael Edward "Felito" "Ted" Cruz 2016 - Eligibility

#950

Post by Reality Check » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:51 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote: Well, the United States did not adopt those statutes. The British common law did not make them natural born. Likewise, the current U.S. statutes don't make them natural born, either.
Actually many of the former colonies adopted prior English statutes in their reception laws. Here are a few examples:

(H/T to commenter named Joey at OCT)

Reception statute of New York, 1786 (based on provision of NY Constitution, 1777, art. 35):
Whereas by the Constitution of this state it is declared that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the Legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on [19 April 1775] (except such parts thereof as are by the said Constitution abrogated) shall be and continue the law of this state; subject to such alterations and provisions as the Legislature of this state shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. And whereas such of the said statutes as have been generally supposed to extend to the late colony and to this state, are contained in a great number of volumes.” [a commission is established to gather together and put before the legislature the appropriate statutes].
Reception Provision of Massachusetts Constitution, 1780, ch. vi, art. vi.:
All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used, and approved in the Province, Colony, or State of Massachusetts Bay, and usually practiced on in the courts of law, shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this constitution.
Reception statute of Virginia, 1776:
“And be it further ordained, That the common law of England,all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the General Assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the General Convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.

Reception statute of Pennsylvania, 1777:
[[section]]1. “Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the 14th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . . and the common law andsuch of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted.

[[section]]2. Provided always, that so much of every law or act of general assembly of the province aforesaid, as orders taking or subscribing any oath, affirmation or declaration of allegiance or fidelity to the king of Great Britain, or his successors, or oath of office; and so much of every law or act of general assembly aforesaid, as acknowledges any authority in the heirs or devisees of William Penn, Esq., deceased, the former governor of the said province, or any other person whomsoever as governor; and so much of every law or act of general assembly, as ascertains the number of members of assembly in any county, the time of election and the qualifications of electors; and so much of every law or act of assembly aforesaid, as declares, orders, directs or commands any matter or thing repugnant to, against, or inconsistent with the constitution of this commonwealth, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no coerce or effect; and so much of the statute laws of England aforesaid relating to felonies, as takes notice of or relates to treason or misprision of treason, or directs the style of the process in any case whatsoever, shall be, and is hereby declared, of no force or effect, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Reception Provision of the Delaware Constitution, 1776, art. 25::
“The common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this state, shall remain in force unless they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature, such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Constitution and the declaration of rights, & agreed by this convention.
While I understand the argument that you and Mike Dunford make that the Naturalization Act of 1795 in effect revoked the natural born status of persons born abroad I think it requires some mind reading to divine the intent of the members of Congress since there isn't a record to support that was their intent. I think one could make an equally valid argument that they thought the natural born language was unnecessary and that those who were citizens at birth were natural born by common law (including the adopted prior statutes of England).

I don't think the courts are ever going to deprive thousands of citizens the right to run for president based on such a weak argument. Ted Cruz is completely unqualified to run for president but not because of his Canadian birth.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Post Reply

Return to “Presidential Election”