Rand Paul: Ted Cruz is a natural-born Canadian

posted at 8:31 pm on January 11, 2016 by Allahpundit

Skip to 1:40 for the key bit. It’s hard to see this as anything but pure spite towards Cruz, of which there’s plenty in Paulworld, for surpassing him as the “conservatarian” choice in the primary. In theory, I guess, raising enough doubt about Cruz’s eligibility could cause some libertarians and “constitutionalists” to run away from Cruz and back to Paul, but how much is that worth to Paul? Five percent, maybe? He goes from an also-ran in the low single-digits to an also-ran in the high single-digits while potentially tipping the race to in Iowa to Trump, the least libertarian candidate in the race. And meanwhile Paul stinks of desperation. I could understand him hitting Cruz hard if they were in a dogfight for their lane of the race, but as it is, Cruz’s success is Paul’s best chance of having a somewhat kindred spirit in the White House on matters like domestic surveillance. At this point, he’ll wield more influence over the next Republican government by dropping out and campaigning for Cruz than by trying to destroy him. The best spin you can put on this is that it’s a bankshot — the Birther attacks weaken Cruz in Iowa, leading to a Trump win, which further weakens Cruz in New Hampshire, leading his libertarian support to defect to Paul there, and then … Paul finishes fifth in New Hampshire behind Trump, Rubio, Christie, and Kasich. Where does Rand go after that? Will ending Cruz be enough to have made this campaign worthwhile to him?

The most noteworthy bit is Paul floating the idea that “natural-born” must mean something distinct from hereditary citizenship or else the Constitution wouldn’t specifically mention it. Right, there is a distinction — with naturalized citizenship, but Rand’s got an agenda here so he’s going to read the clause in the most crabbed way possible. The irritating irony of all this is that none of Cruz’s detractors actually have the balls to file suit to challenge him, knowing that if they win the backlash on the right to their own candidacy would be ferocious and if they lose they’d forfeit this cheap line of attack on Cruz. Not even Trump, who otherwise crows about how good he is at suing people, will own the idea of suing Cruz himself, preferring to warn instead about what Democrats might do. Rand does the same here. If this issue is so serious that the GOP might lose the election by having its nominee thrown off the ballot, Trump/Rand etc should declare that they’re simply doing their duty as loyal members of the party by challenging him in court. Paul, at least, has little to lose in doing so. In fact, if this becomes enough of an issue that Cruz can’t back on message, I wonder if he’ll recruit an ally to quietly file suit somewhere and litigate the issue weakly, hoping that the case will be dismissed for lack of standing or that Cruz will win on the merits. The PR would be distracting but it may reach a point where it’s distracting even if a suit isn’t filed. And if an ally filed suit, Cruz would have control over both sides of the litigation. It’s not an option Cruz will choose yet, but we’ll see how desperate Trump gets in the next three weeks.

Incidentally, if you were hoping to watch Rand say this to Cruz’s face at the debate on Thursday night, you’ll have to keep hoping. He didn’t make the cut for the main stage.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:28 PM

Lots of people using a repealed law to argue for Cruz’s citizenship status. I’ve never seen repealed law being argued like it’s still in effect before now. Do you think congress can bestow natural born citizenship on Obama’s Syrian refugee migrants?

Buddahpundit on January 11, 2016 at 9:36 PM

Well, for one, Naturalization Act of 1790 was not repealed, it was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795. Which is the legal term for rewritten and modified, not repealed.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:46 PM

Wrong. There is only one legal case to be made here. That being that the phrase “Natural Born” was not removed, simply not reiterated because in legal terms it had already been defined, the 1795 amending modified that prior definition, it did not strike or remove it. It is something known as “A Priori”.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:36 PM

Then we better get to court, because Cruz’s status as a natural born citizen is not clear, as it would be if the language of the 1790 Act had been retained. Should only take a few minutes. I guess Congress just figured to leave those two meaningless words out because everything is “quite simple”.

Joseph K on January 11, 2016 at 9:47 PM

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:36 PM

A Priori doesn’t mean repealed laws are still in effect because they were in effect before they were repealed. That law wasn’t even constitutional while it was on the books. At least they had the good sense to fix their mistakes back then.

Buddahpundit on January 11, 2016 at 9:41 PM

Buddahpundit on January 11, 2016 at 9:36 PM

Well, for one, Naturalization Act of 1790 was not repealed, it was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795. Which is the legal term for rewritten and modified, not repealed.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:46 PM

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:48 PM

Exclusive: 1974 Canadian Electors’ List Named Ted Cruz’s Parents

Garyinaz66 on January 11, 2016 at 9:31 PM

And, the article – which you are afraid to link to – goes on to explain that list does not necessarily indicate that Eleanor Cruz voted. In fact, Eleanor Cruz was not eligible to vote – as she was never a Canadian citizen.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/

Pork-Chop on January 11, 2016 at 9:50 PM

Just doin’ my good deed for the day tryin’ to save you from your birther self.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 9:45 PM

At least you’re not calling for me to be banned.

Joseph K on January 11, 2016 at 9:50 PM

The Framers made a special distinction for a very special job. Just one. They did not say the job holder could be any person born a citizen; they reserved the job for persons born within the special category, that is, persons having an extra distinction from those definable as “born citizens.”

It wasn’t a classification of citizenship; it was part of a job description, same as the age requirement. There have never been any special privileges offered to people over 35 — well, except for that one job title.

They didn’t need the Fourteenth Amendment, nor any future ruling, to figure out what they meant.

Lolo on January 11, 2016 at 9:45 PM

That’s an interesting but baseless assertion.

Axe on January 11, 2016 at 9:54 PM

Supreme court 1875 for those arguing 1795 struck down 1790.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

Constitutionalist on January 11, 2016 at 9:54 PM

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:36 PM

Then we better get to court, because Cruz’s status as a natural born citizen is not clear, as it would be if the language of the 1790 Act had been retained. Should only take a few minutes. I guess Congress just figured to leave those two meaningless words out because everything is “quite simple”.

Joseph K on January 11, 2016 at 9:47 PM

And that my friend, is the whole crux of Trump’s statement that Cruz’s citizenship status could be problematic. They left those two word out because of legal precedent and A priori. In order for the meaning of “Natural Born” to be changed, they would have had to redefine “Natural Born”. What has been legally defined remains legally defined because of legal precedent and A priori until it is legally redefined.

Since the Naturalization Act of 1795 did not redefine “Natural born”, the pre-existing legal definition remains in effect.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:55 PM

That’s an interesting but baseless assertion.

Axe on January 11, 2016 at 9:54 PM

What I’m asserting is the very definition of the term.

For the same reason that, if the Framers were to have had cause to mention “a married couple” in the Constitution, they wouldn’t have thought it necessary to explain the term — that it meant an opposite-sex couple. They had no idea how badly the definition would someday become needed.

“Natural born,” as it applies to citizenship, was WIDELY known at the time.

Lolo on January 11, 2016 at 9:56 PM

Joseph K on January 11, 2016 at 9:50 PM

Why would I do that?

Nutball birthers are entertaining.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 9:56 PM

Magicjava on January 11, 2016 at 8:37 PM

I’d rather see Trump only entering the WH as visitor to the Cruz WH.
CRUZ-WALKER ’16!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 11, 2016 at 9:57 PM

Lolo on January 11, 2016 at 9:56 PM

No one has trouble understanding “well-regulated” in the Second. Well, some do.

Lolo on January 11, 2016 at 9:58 PM

Question. Why is a person born in the united states of a Mexican citizen an American, but a person born in Canada of an American citizen not a Canadian? The question is not important if I ask it but if Cruz is the nominee, you can bet the Democrats will ask.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 11, 2016 at 10:00 PM

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 11, 2016 at 10:00 PM

They are.

Cruz gave up his Canadian citizenship a while back.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 10:02 PM

Since the Naturalization Act of 1795 did not redefine “Natural born”, the pre-existing legal definition remains in effect.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:55 PM

You are the first person, commenter or pundit, to make a case for Cruz that I find valid. As I said, one of the smartest commenters on the site.

You certainly did a better job than Andrew McCarthy.

Joseph K on January 11, 2016 at 10:02 PM

Anyone actually interested could check this, too, from 2013: Just Say ‘No!” To Birtherism Of The Left Variety As Espoused By HAL

And the recent weighing-in of the Harvard Law Review: On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

“The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.” All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

“While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.”

— And so on.

“There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.”

— Amen.

Axe on January 11, 2016 at 10:05 PM

Please, Rand isn’t taking a shot at Cruz. He’s just presenting the Constitutional question here honestly, saying it will be resolved by the courts. I don’t think Rand has anything to gain by attacking Cruz at this point. Trump, on the other hand, can go jump off a cliff and take his supporters with him.

TBSchemer on January 11, 2016 at 10:05 PM

How can a natural born citizen have dual citizenship? As natural born would eliminate any doubt about citizenship. If Cruz had to renounce Canadian citizenship, he must have been a natural born Canadian citizen. That is why they went through such effort to insist Obama was born in Hawaii and being born in Kenya to an American mother would have left doubt.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 11, 2016 at 10:07 PM

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:55 PM

You are the first person, commenter or pundit, to make a case for Cruz that I find valid. As I said, one of the smartest commenters on the site.

You certainly did a better job than Andrew McCarthy.

Joseph K on January 11, 2016 at 10:02 PM

Which is amusing, as I am a Trump supporter, though Ted is my second choice. One thing I try very hard to do, is not allow my political opinions to impact my sense of honesty.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 10:07 PM

What I’m asserting is the very definition of the term.

For the same reason that, if the Framers were to have had cause to mention “a married couple” in the Constitution, they wouldn’t have thought it necessary to explain the term — that it meant an opposite-sex couple. They had no idea how badly the definition would someday become needed.

“Natural born,” as it applies to citizenship, was WIDELY known at the time.

Lolo on January 11, 2016 at 9:56 PM

Yes it was. I hope I’ve demonstrated the meaning to anyone reading through here.

Axe on January 11, 2016 at 10:08 PM

TBSchemer on January 11, 2016 at 10:05 PM

Late to the party and uninformed, again.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 10:09 PM

TBSchemer, you can count Trump’s votes compared to any of the other candidates. Notice Trump leads. F you and whatever donkey you rode in on.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 11, 2016 at 10:11 PM

Late to the party and uninformed, again.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 10:09 PM

19% of voters are self-described Libertarians. That’s half of all independents. A libertarian-Republican could easily beat Hillary without any of the Trump voters.

TBSchemer on January 11, 2016 at 10:13 PM

TBSchemer, you can count Trump’s votes compared to any of the other candidates. Notice Trump leads. F you and whatever donkey you rode in on.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 11, 2016 at 10:11 PM

Yeah, according to polls that only include old, white southerners.

Go ahead, check the crosstabs. Prove me wrong.

TBSchemer on January 11, 2016 at 10:14 PM

TBSchemer on January 11, 2016 at 10:13 PM

And you are trying your best to prove that.

What a fool.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 10:15 PM

Prove me wrong.

TBSchemer on January 11, 2016 at 10:14 PM

You were proven wrong every time you bring this up.

Yet you continue to do the same thing over and over.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 10:16 PM

Yes it was. I hope I’ve demonstrated the meaning to anyone reading through here.

Axe on January 11, 2016 at 10:08 PM

Oh look, Harvard lawyers covering for Obama’s father’s citizenship disagree with Vattel.

Go figure.

Lolo on January 11, 2016 at 10:19 PM

I just heard the Rand Paul’s mother had a Caesarian Section at his birth. As he was not “natural born,” but surgically born, he is not eligible to be president.

The above is as stupid as the other “natural born” arguments. Anyone who is arguing that Cruz is not eligible is deficient of intelligence (that means “stupid” if you happen to be in this category), or dissimilating.

Wino on January 11, 2016 at 10:19 PM

Trump, on the other hand, can go jump off a cliff and take his supporters with him.

TDSscreamer on January 11, 2016 at 10:05 PM

HugoDrax on January 11, 2016 at 10:29 PM

We’re arguing the point prematurely. It’s soon to become moot.

This topic will no longer matter, somewhere after South Carolina. Well, until Trump wants to pick a VP. Maybe Trump is trying to clear this up now precisely because he wants to pick Cruz. None of his rhetoric can’t be walked back if there’s a court ruling, which is basically what Trump is calling for.

But I don’t think he’ll pick Cruz, much as I’d want Cruz watching over Trump’s shoulder during SCOTUS picks. I think Trump will go for some high-profile four-star.

Lolo on January 11, 2016 at 10:31 PM

Which is amusing, as I am a Trump supporter, though Ted is my second choice. One thing I try very hard to do, is not allow my political opinions to impact my sense of honesty.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 10:07 PM

I and a few other Trump supporters did the same thing with Carson when he was slandered, eventually getting an apology from Ed. Trump supporters are so sick of defending their man from blatant falsehoods that they tend to dislike seeing it elsewhere. You’ve introduced new information that is logical, and makes me question my case. Cruz supporters calling me stupid couldn’t do it, because they couldn’t make a logical, informed case. Of course, they are going to take credit for, and use, your insight now, as if it were obvious all along.

Joseph K on January 11, 2016 at 10:31 PM

Well, for one, Naturalization Act of 1790 was not repealed, it was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795. Which is the legal term for rewritten and modified, not repealed.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:46 PM

“An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

The first one was unconstitutional so they repealed and replaced it. They removed the Natural Born reference in regards to children born overseas to American parents.

Buddahpundit on January 11, 2016 at 10:32 PM

You were proven wrong every time you bring this up.

Yet you continue to do the same thing over and over.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 10:16 PM

I don’t see you presenting any crosstabs.

TBSchemer on January 11, 2016 at 10:33 PM

Oh look, Harvard lawyers covering for Obama’s father’s citizenship disagree with Vattel.

Go figure.

Lolo on January 11, 2016 at 10:19 PM

Also the first Congress; President George Washington, who signed the first law; Supreme Court Justices throughout the country’s history; (none of whom knew nothing about “Obama’s father’s citizenship,”); and if I steal PHUP’s attributions toward the same argument:

“. . . James Madison, Sir William Blackstone, the author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, (R-MI), his second, Senator Edward Cowan, (R-PA), the Congressional Research Service, Citizenship of the United States, written by Frederick van Dyne, the Assistant Solicitor of the US Department of State in 1904, Harvard Law Professor Allan Dershowitz, Eugene Volokh, the Gary T Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, Lawrence Tribe, a Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, and more.”

Axe on January 11, 2016 at 10:34 PM

Posted below is commentary on the “natural born Citizen” clause from someone who has actually spent years studying the issue and presenting arguments and preparing cases for challenges to the eligibility. Read and come to a proper understanding of the founders purpose for establishing the qualification. Why did the founders state “natural born Citizen” for Commander in Chief and NOT for other federal offices unless there was a special type of citizenship such as NATURAL BORN for a particularly powerful office.

Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

A blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, “Natural Born Citizen” presidential eligibility clause.
A Citizen is One Thing, But a Natural Born Citizen is Another By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 29, 2015

“Cruz was born in Canada, presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. He can be a citizen of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress (section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952). He is not and cannot be a natural born citizen under the common law because, while he was born to a U.S. citizen mother, he was not born in the United States and he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father.”

VorDaj on January 11, 2016 at 10:36 PM

TBSchemer on January 11, 2016 at 10:33 PM

You stopped being worth it a long time ago.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 10:47 PM

Bill Mitchell [email protected] 11h11 hours ago
If Cruz could EASILY put the eligibility issue behind him by following Mr. Trump’s simple advice, why doesn’t he?

Pride.

Hubris.

“I’m not taking legal advice from Donald Trump!” says Cruz.

anotherJoe on January 11, 2016 at 10:55 PM

If Cruz could EASILY put the eligibility issue behind him by following Mr. Trump’s simple advice, why doesn’t he?

Pride.

Hubris.

“I’m not taking legal advice from Donald Trump!” says Cruz.

anotherJoe on January 11, 2016 at 10:55 PM

How ironic. The guys complaining that Cruz agrees with trump too much now complain that he does not listen to Trump.
If nothing else, at least Trump supporters remain steadfastly consistently utterly unchangeably irrational creatures.

Constitutionalist on January 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM

Constitutionalist on January 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM

You left out lovable.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 11:19 PM

Yeah, according to polls that only include old, white southerners.

Go ahead, check the crosstabs. Prove me wrong.

TBSchemer

+——

Cuz New Hampshire over runneth with old, white southern…or something.

xblade on January 11, 2016 at 11:24 PM

You left out lovable.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 11:19 PM

They are, for the first few lies, but after a couple thousand, that freshness just wears off. They are not family, so they do not get a dozen buried bodies before they lose the luster.

Constitutionalist on January 11, 2016 at 11:36 PM

Well, for one, Naturalization Act of 1790 was not repealed, it was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795. Which is the legal term for rewritten and modified, not repealed.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:46 PM

“An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

The first one was unconstitutional so they repealed and replaced it. They removed the Natural Born reference in regards to children born overseas to American parents.

Buddahpundit on January 11, 2016 at 10:32 PM

Ah… I see, you insist on removing any doubt that you are a blithering idiot, well done sir.

The supreme Court, on the other hand has already ruled on this, and, I might point out, given the exact same argument that I gave you. In other words, the Supreme Court cited Legal precedent and A priori and concluded that the legal definition of “Natural Born Citizen” as legally defined in the Naturalization Act of 1795 remained the legal definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.

Supreme court 1875 for those arguing 1795 struck down 1790.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

Constitutionalist on January 11, 2016 at 9:54 PM

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 11:36 PM

§3 of the act of 1790:

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

§3 of the act of 1795:

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

By 1802, it had been pushed down to §4 and turned into legalese:

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States Provided also that no person heretofore proscribed by any state or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed

———-

1795 was written to include a new “declaration” requirement for people seeking naturalization. Nearly all of the work, from version to version, has been to modify or expand the naturalization process.

The redundant term “natural born” stops appearing anywhere after 1790. It never appeared in §3 of 1790 at all, but appeared only in the preamble of 1790 that summarized the law, including §3.

Axe on January 12, 2016 at 12:01 AM

Then we better get to court, because Cruz’s status as a natural born citizen is not clear, as it would be if the language of the 1790 Act had been retained. Should only take a few minutes. I guess Congress just figured to leave those two meaningless words out because everything is “quite simple”.

Joseph K on January 11, 2016 at 9:47 PM

This is pretty important:

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 12:02 AM

lol, snarky brillo pad on the head, who ran from a dreamer’s set up question with his ass on fire, has plenty of venom for another senator. But not for McConell.

arnold ziffel on January 12, 2016 at 12:16 AM

arnold ziffel on January 12, 2016 at 12:16 AM

…AMEN!…piggy!

JugEarsButtHurt on January 12, 2016 at 12:24 AM

He is as loony as his crazy father….. both of them are moonbats.

ultracon on January 12, 2016 at 12:24 AM

The supreme Court, on the other hand has already ruled on this, and, I might point out, given the exact same argument that I gave you. In other words, the Supreme Court cited Legal precedent and A priori and concluded that the legal definition of “Natural Born Citizen” as legally defined in the Naturalization Act of 1795 remained the legal definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 11:36 PM

1. The Naturalization Act of 1795 didn’t list Natural Born Citizen, they inserted that into the ruling.
2. They have the text wrong, or if that is not the case, they are creating a law which they stated they did not have the power to do so at the end of their ruling.
3. The Supreme court was deciding a suffrage case, not eligibility for the Presidency.
4. The Constitution only gives Congress the ability to establish a “Uniform Rule of Naturalization,” not to grant the status of Natural Born Citizen, that is why it was removed from the 1795 law. A Natural Born Citizen has that from birth and it is unquestioned.

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 12:26 AM

Constitutionalist on January 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM

You left out lovable.

cozmo on January 11, 2016 at 11:19 PM

Well, that’s not universally true, is it?

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 12:35 AM

Cruz is a fool to have let this get this far without asking for a ruling. This is one time Schad the Fraud could look up old post from me and see I was commenting this a year ago.

He would have likely gotten a positive ruling from the courts and it would be a non issue.

Tater Salad on January 12, 2016 at 12:41 AM

Cuz New Hampshire over runneth with old, white southern…or something.

xblade on January 11, 2016 at 11:24 PM

Check those crosstabs. A margin of error of +/- 10% for Republican voters under 45 means they had only about 96 voters under the age of 45. That’s only 23% of the sample.

Realistically, >50% of voters will be under 45, yet the pollsters are ignoring this demographic.

TBSchemer on January 12, 2016 at 12:43 AM

Ah… I see, you insist on removing any doubt that you are a blithering idiot, well done sir.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 11:36 PM

Interesting. You claim they didn’t repeal it, I reply with the language from the source itself of them repealing it. You are thoroughly and embarrassingly discredited. Now stop typing.

Buddahpundit on January 12, 2016 at 12:45 AM

Everyone wants to know if Ted Cruz is eligible to be President. The issue is slowing him down. How can Cruz get past this issue?

“If Donald Trump is afraid to face me in the election, he should sue me.”

For a lot of reasons I’m not going to get into here, no one can actually sue to prevent Ted Cruz from running for office. (Standing is the legal doctrine.)

Cruz, by telling Trump to sue him, is making Trump look weak by not suing him.

This gives Trump a choice: Either file a lawsuit or move past the issue.

If Trump keeps bringing up the issue, Cruz need only say, “Sue me.”

Charliecrown on January 12, 2016 at 1:45 AM

Charlie, Trump already foresaw that maneuver, which is why he asked Cruz to get a ruling, himself. A man of honor should do this himself, others shouldn’t have to sue him.

cimbri on January 12, 2016 at 2:00 AM

Tater, it took the guy decades to renounce his Canadian citizenship. He isn’t exactly moving at warp speed.

cimbri on January 12, 2016 at 2:02 AM

Ah… I see, you insist on removing any doubt that you are a blithering idiot, well done sir.

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 11:36 PM

Interesting. You claim they didn’t repeal it, I reply with the language from the source itself of them repealing it. You are thoroughly and embarrassingly discredited. Now stop typing.

Buddahpundit on January 12, 2016 at 12:45 AM

The law of 1795 was written primarily to define the naturalization process, and changed the residency requirements. Where it changed the provisions of the 1790 law, it could be said to repeal it. But the 1795 law doesn’t repeal the 1790 laws concerning citizenship by birth. On the contrary, a fair reading of the two laws shows that the 1795 law confirms the 1790 law in this regard almost word for word.

1790: 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:

compare:

1795: And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:

I’m not seeing any repeal going on of this provision. Both laws are mostly about the naturalization requirements, but they both name two classes of people who are born citizens: the children of naturalized citizens, and the children of citizens born outside the United States.

The only real difference is that the term “natural born citizens” is specifically used in 1790, while in 1795 it is simply “citizens.”

If you’re going to claim that the mere absence of the words in the 1795 law means children born to citizens outside of the United States after 1795 are not natural born citizens, then you are announcing that Congress can unilaterally redefine what it means to be a natural born citizen, and that we now have a special category of “born citizen, but not natural born citizen.”

But in the 1790 law, the children of naturalized citizens are also not specifically called “natural born citizens.” Are we then to understand that you can only be “natural born citizens” if both of your parents were “natural born citizens?” But your parents could only then be “natural born citizens” if they themselves were the children of parents who were “natural born citizens.” Under such a regime, children can never be natural born parents if they have any grandfather, grandmother, great-grandfather, or great-grandmother, who was ever a naturalized citizen. We would effectively then declare that the children, grandchildren, or other descendants of naturalized citizens could never be “natural born citizens.”

Does anyone really want to make this ridiculous claim?

Children born to naturalized citizens are natural born citizens, and children born to either kind of citizens overseas are natural born citizens. The same is true in 1795 as it was in 1790. There is zero evidence of an intent to remove “natural born” citizenship status in the 1795 law. If that was the intent of the law, surely the authors of the law would have explicitly declared the removal of status from this class of “born citizens.”

I have yet to see any clear evidence that a category of citizens was created between “natural born citizen” and “naturalized citizen.” No legislation speaks of a class of citizens who are born citizens but not “natural born” citizens. It seems far more likely that the one class of citizens in 1790 was described as “natural born” to settle the controversy of whether children born overseas of American parents were somehow not to be considered as much citizens as those born in this country, and that the phrase was omitted in 1795 because it had been established already that such born citizens were natural born citizens.

On the contrary, the intent seems quite clear: the children of naturalized citizens are no less natural born children than the children of natural born citizens. This matches the obvious intent of the Constitution to ensure that those seeking the presidency have clear loyalty to their nation. A child born and raised in the USA is scarcely going to be less loyal to the nation because a father or grandfather was naturalized rather than born here.

And this is all borne out quite clearly by Minor v. Happersett, which states that from 1790 on, the children of US parents born abroad have been considered natural born citizens. Note that the justices did not consider the 1795 law to have changed that status at all.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:18 AM

See this is what happens when you’re generous and allow citizenship for foreigners. Now they want to be considered as natural born citizens. Cruz is your classic transnational citizen. He’s not a natural born American citizen.

cimbri on January 12, 2016 at 2:41 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:18 AM

A closer reading of both laws makes clear exactly what is going on.

In the 1790 law, the first class mentioned includes not just children born to naturalized parents, but also children of parents who are naturalized while the children are minors, and in this law they are also considered citizens.

1790: 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:

So the children born to parents who are already naturalized would be natural born citizens, but the children who were alive but still minors when their parents were naturalized were effectively also citizens, but were not born that way, and therefore could not be described as “natural born citizens.” since they are already alive. Which is why the phrase “natural born citizens” is not used to describe their citizenship, because those alive at the time of their parents’ naturalization were, you know, NOT born citizens.

In the 1790 law, one sentence was used to describe the children of naturalized citizens, and a separate sentence was used to describe the children born to citizens overseas.

But in the 1795 law, a single sentence is used to describe both groups of people, and while all are citizens, only the second group — the one born to Americans overseas — are natural born citizens. Since citizens is used to describe both groups of citizens, and the first group are not necessarily born that way, the 1795 law is not able to use “natural born citizens” to describe both groups.

IOW, the only reason the 1795 law does not specifically use the phrase “natural born citizens” is because of the way they were including two groups of citizens, and only one of those groups was “natural born citizens.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:51 AM

Unlike Rand or tRumpsky, Cruz can argue the case himself before the court and win.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 4:42 AM

I will cease supporting any and all Rand Paul supporters financially, and I will never support Rand Paul or any Paul family members. This also goes to his top staffers unless they resign in the next week citing this as a reason.

OregonPolitician on January 12, 2016 at 5:18 AM

The butthurt is strong with this one.

DRayRaven on January 12, 2016 at 5:43 AM

Trump people: we need to get the supreme court to rule on natural born citizen!

Supreme Court has already ruled on this after having read all the laws pertaining to it and conclude the the 1790 law remains effectively unchanged with respect to natural born citizen.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

Trump supporters: No, we need a new Supreme Court decision on it! Nothing is settled until it benefits us. Liberalism 101 dudes!

Constitutionalist on January 12, 2016 at 7:48 AM

Please, Rand isn’t taking a shot at Cruz. He’s just presenting the Constitutional question here honestly, saying it will be resolved by the courts. I don’t think Rand has anything to gain by attacking Cruz at this point. Trump, on the other hand, can go jump off a cliff and take his supporters with him.

TBSchemer on January 11, 2016 at 10:05 PM

You’re more full of sh*t than an old lady’s purse. And you’re more of a little b*tch than your munchkin hero, Poodlehead Paul.

M240H on January 12, 2016 at 8:18 AM

Since deciding that I would support Trump if he became the nominee, I have never wavered in that determination in spite of his serial vulgarity and his exceedingly vulgar supporters here, until now. Trump is proving himself to be mean spirited and vindictive not only when someone attacks him, but also when someone threatens his top spot, however marginal that threat might be.

If he abuses his friends as badly as he abuses his enemies, how can we trust him to be open to criticism when he inevitably does something wrong and takes heat from it? If conservatives bust his balls and he turns on them and makes them public enemy #1, how then is he in any way superior to Obama?

Trump supporters say that his policies are right. Be that as it may, if his ego has a higher priority than his policies, then his policies are meaningless. If he is as petty as he’s acting right now, then there is zero chance that he values principle enough to show loyalty to principle. This was always a concern with Trump, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If he continues like this and spurns the support of conservatives, then he’s no better than Jeb Bush and no more worthy of my support. It remains to be seen if this particular leopard can change his spots. If not, it will be as easy for conservatives to burn down Trump in the general as it’s been for Trump to burn down the GOPe.

Immolate on January 12, 2016 at 9:56 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:18 AM

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

One of the reasons the 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 act because congress doesn’t have the power to create natural born citizens, only to naturalize people.

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 9:57 AM

Put on your clown shoes Rand, this completes the circus outfit.

I think the Democrats are going to force it to be adjudicated, and I think the Supreme Court is going to have to decide it.”

Most courts would laugh this off the docket. As the Democrats like to say, this is settled law.

Maybe you can go find Obama’s “original” birth certificate while your at it. Dope.

“Adjudicating” this means thousands of military personnel and expatriate children would be questionable American citizens. That’s not only laughable, but insulting to a wide part of the electorate and their families who have dedicated themselves to this nation.

What a pathetic, dubious and inconsequential little man Rand is.

Marcus Traianus on January 12, 2016 at 10:50 AM

One of the reasons the 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 act because congress doesn’t have the power to create natural born citizens, only to naturalize people.

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 9:57 AM

Cite the evidence. Because the Supreme Court has stated that in substance, the 1790 act has remained in effect with only mild tweaks.
So prove that is why they changed it. Should be easy. GO GO GO GO!

Constitutionalist on January 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM

Why can’t Paul just go away? He whines so much and offers so few actual solutions to any problems, I would swear he was a democrat. Who is giving this guy ink and why?

NoPain on January 12, 2016 at 11:11 AM

What a pathetic, dubious and inconsequential little man Rand is.

Marcus Traianus on January 12, 2016 at 10:50 AM

Rand is a natural-born cry baby. The other pearl clutching GOPe gas bags at least know how to avoid such obvious pouting.

At least missing the kid’s table debate will show he stood on principle for his own ego.

widget on January 12, 2016 at 11:14 AM

How can a natural born citizen have dual citizenship? As natural born would eliminate any doubt about citizenship

You are forgetting something (other than there being no legal basis for your statement). Namely, both countries have different laws and regulations. In essence, country “a” says “He’s a citizen of our country.” Country “b” says “He’s a citizen of our country.” Neither country gives a hoot nanny what the other says. Thus, dual citizenship is the norm. In many cases, countries require a declaratory statement at some point, i.e. 18 years of age for the resident to claim one country over the other. Some don’t require it at all and just say “He’s a citizen of our country.”

At the end of the day, one is either a citizen at birth (natural born) or not one and must be naturalized.

BierManVA on January 12, 2016 at 11:25 AM

Rand is a natural-born cry baby. The other pearl clutching GOPe gas bags at least know how to avoid such obvious pouting.

At least missing the kid’s table debate will show he stood on principle for his own ego.

widget on January 12, 2016 at 11:14 AM

Rand is not one to talk about circumstances of birth. He is a natural-born nutter and conspiracy theorist. It doesn’t help in circumstances like this when he reinforces how small the distance the acorn fell from the tree.

Immolate on January 12, 2016 at 11:48 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:18 AM

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

One of the reasons the 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 act because congress doesn’t have the power to create natural born citizens, only to naturalize people.

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 9:57 AM

I’ve heard this asserted before, but is there any evidence that this was the reason for repealing the 1790 act? If there is, then the Supreme Court of 1875 was unaware of it, since they asserted that the 1790 definition of them as natural born citizens was beyond question.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 11:55 AM

Rand Paul is Mitch McConnell with curlier hair and without the waddle under his chin.

#RANDNO

PappyD61 on January 12, 2016 at 12:13 PM

Cruz is a fool to have let this get this far without asking for a ruling.

That’s not how it works. You don’t “ask” for a ruling, someone has to file a suit challenging his eligibility. If Trump, Paul or the party leadership really think they have a case, then let them file the lawsuit. Ask them that and watch them sputter. If someone make a move in that direction, it would surprise me to see Cruz file for declaratory judgement in the case.

In the worst case, Cruz could have an ally file the suit against him, but imagine the outcry that would cause.

RaulYbarra on January 12, 2016 at 1:13 PM

It seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Someone is either a natural-born citizen, or must be naturalized.

Did Ted Cruz need to be naturalized in order to attain full citizenship?

The Schaef on January 12, 2016 at 1:19 PM

Question. Why is a person born in the united states of a Mexican citizen an American, but a person born in Canada of an American citizen not a Canadian? The question is not important if I ask it but if Cruz is the nominee, you can bet the Democrats will ask.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 11, 2016 at 10:00 PM

Most people don’t realize Canada is not one of the extra seven states that Obama found. Canada is a separate country with separate laws and separate head of state/government.

Nutstuyu on January 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM

After the precedence of Barry “Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.” Soetero, citizenship is now completely irrelevant.

Nutstuyu on January 12, 2016 at 1:26 PM

I’ve heard this asserted before, but is there any evidence that this was the reason for repealing the 1790 act? If there is, then the Supreme Court of 1875 was unaware of it, since they asserted that the 1790 definition of them as natural born citizens was beyond question.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 11:55 AM

The whole point of being a natural born citizen is that your status is not suspect. If Congress is having to spell your status for you, then you are not a natural born citizen, just a citizen.

The constitution only grants Congress the power to naturalize, meaning there would be a change in status. A natural born citizen doesn’t need naturalization laws as they are a citizen born of two citizen parents on the soil of that country. The founders knew this and changed the original law to read only citizens. It was, pretty much, a copy and paste from the 1790 law to the 1795 law concerning overseas citizenship.

The supreme court was quoting the text of the 1795 law and adding language to it using the repealed 1790 text. They in effect were creating a new law, which is out of their purview, as they justly stated in that same ruling.

Read the 1795 naturalization act’s text, where they quoted verbatim. There is no mention of the phrase natural born citizen in it at all, the supreme court was wrong. But even still, if we are to buy the fact that they can create new law, the fact that they mention “citizenS” in plural and not the singular form citizen, means two parents are required.

Sure Ted Cruz could be a citizen, but the fact that we are even having this discussion proves the point that he is not a natural born citizen. Just like Obama (unless his father was not who he claims him to be like some have suggested).

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 2:36 PM

Most people don’t realize Canada is not one of the extra seven states that Obama found. Canada is a separate country with separate laws and separate head of state/government.

Nutstuyu on January 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM

What?!?
I thought Canada was comprised of states 51 – 58……

dentarthurdent on January 12, 2016 at 2:46 PM

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 2:36 PM

If you want to argue why they changed it in 1795, you need texual documentation, there are records from the meetings of congress, go search them out and find the text that argues what you say the change means.
The Supreme Court in 1875 did this once already, and came to the conclusion that the meaning of the 1790 act remained in effect.
So, now it is upon you to show your work. The minutes are written down. Have fun reading, I think there are about 70 total pages on this 1795 act to read through and there is no text search. I perused it and found no such text on my lunch hour. But maybe you can find it and PROVE me wrong.

Constitutionalist on January 12, 2016 at 3:00 PM

Fox Business kicked Paul out of the debates, but they’re keeping Kasich on the main stage…

TBSchemer on January 12, 2016 at 4:07 PM

One of the reasons the 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 act because congress doesn’t have the power to create natural born citizens, only to naturalize people.

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 9:57 AM

I’ve heard this asserted before, but is there any evidence that this was the reason for repealing the 1790 act? If there is, then the Supreme Court of 1875 was unaware of it, since they asserted that the 1790 definition of them as natural born citizens was beyond question.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 11:55 AM

The whole point of being a natural born citizen is that your status is not suspect. If Congress is having to spell your status for you, then you are not a natural born citizen, just a citizen.

The constitution only grants Congress the power to naturalize, meaning there would be a change in status. A natural born citizen doesn’t need naturalization laws as they are a citizen born of two citizen parents on the soil of that country. The founders knew this and changed the original law to read only citizens. It was, pretty much, a copy and paste from the 1790 law to the 1795 law concerning overseas citizenship.

The supreme court was quoting the text of the 1795 law and adding language to it using the repealed 1790 text. They in effect were creating a new law, which is out of their purview, as they justly stated in that same ruling.

Read the 1795 naturalization act’s text, where they quoted verbatim. There is no mention of the phrase natural born citizen in it at all, the supreme court was wrong. But even still, if we are to buy the fact that they can create new law, the fact that they mention “citizenS” in plural and not the singular form citizen, means two parents are required.

Sure Ted Cruz could be a citizen, but the fact that we are even having this discussion proves the point that he is not a natural born citizen. Just like Obama (unless his father was not who he claims him to be like some have suggested).

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 2:36 PM

You said that the 1790 act was repealed by the 1796 act because Congress can’t create natural born citizens, but I note that you were not able to supply the evidence to support that statement. As nearly as I can tell, there is no evidence for that assertion.

The whole point of being a natural born citizen is that your status is not suspect. If Congress is having to spell your status for you, then you are not a natural born citizen, just a citizen.

The Constitution declares our rights, but that does not mean our rights would not exist without it. The Constitution listing our freedom to peaceably assemble does not mean that the Constitution created that freedom. Certainly, a statement in legislation declaring that children born to citizens abroad are recognized as natural born citizens does not perversely prove the exact opposite.

The constitution only grants Congress the power to naturalize, meaning there would be a change in status. A natural born citizen doesn’t need naturalization laws as they are a citizen born of two citizen parents on the soil of that country. The founders knew this and changed the original law to read only citizens.

Again, there is no evidence supporting this assertion.

The supreme court was quoting the text of the 1795 law and adding language to it using the repealed 1790 text. They in effect were creating a new law, which is out of their purview, as they justly stated in that same ruling.

Read the 1795 naturalization act’s text, where they quoted verbatim. There is no mention of the phrase natural born citizen in it at all, the supreme court was wrong. But even still, if we are to buy the fact that they can create new law, the fact that they mention “citizenS” in plural and not the singular form citizen, means two parents are required.

More likely is that they did not interpret the 1795 act to be changing the status of natural born citizens. It seems far more likely that the only reason that phrase is omitted in the 1795 act is that the phrasing in that act labeled as citizens both the minor children of parents being naturalized and children who were citizens because they were born abroad to American citizens. Both were called citizens in the same sentence in the 1795 act. If the 1795 act had used the phrase “natural born citizens” at that point, it would have declared that children already born as non-citizens to non-citizen parents therefore became natural-born citizens when their parents were naturalized — which would clearly be wrong. Clearly such children would be naturalized citizens, naturalized at the same time as their parents — not natural born citizens.

I have yet to see evidence of a class of citizens who are born citizens, but not natural born citizens.

Why would the Supreme Court take the time to reference the 1790 law concerning natural born citizens if the 1795 act repealed that provision? Citing a historical precedent that only lasted five years doesn’t add much weight to a legal opinion. On the contrary, the Supreme Court declared that all nationalization acts since then had kept substantially the same provision.

As for the requirement of both parents to be citizens, I will note that Vattel, who many rely on for a definition of natural born citizen, said that it was enough for the father to be a citizen. That predates the 1790 and 1795 act. The Minor v. Happersett decision did not attempt to define the complete limits of citizenship, since all that decision needed was to establish that the plaintiff was undeniably a citizen. The Minor v. Happersett decision seems to have been the first to unequivocally declare that women were not prevented from being citizens simply by the fact that they were not allowed to vote at the time.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Did anyone expect Paul to say anything different? …..as he stamps his feet and threatens to boycott his only chance at his fading candidacy, the low polling ‘kids table’ debate.

((((laughter))))

Andy__B on January 12, 2016 at 5:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2