As far as I know, it never did.
To understand what the term natural born citizen means one must understand
that before July 4, 1776, everyone born in the new world was born a subject
of the King of England, not a citizen. In fact, our first presidents were
all born as subjects of the King of England:
- George Washington
- John Adams
- Thomas Jefferson
- James Madison
- James Monroe
- John Quincy Adams
- Andrew Jackson
- William Henry Harrison
Each of these men, along with their fellow-countrymen were transformed into
citizens on July 4, 1776 by means of the Declaration of Independence.
So, what does that mean for those presidents according to the
Constitution’s requirement that a president be a natural-born citizen? It
means that they were naturalized via the Declaration of Independence, which
would later be written out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US
Constitution.
*No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible
to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that
Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.*
Our first presidents were simply eligible because they were citizens at the
time of the adoption of the Constitution. The point is that the framers
knew what a natural-born citizen was and they knew they were not natural
born citizens. Therefore, they had to grandfather themselves into the
requirement. However, after that first generation, all subsequent
presidents were required to be natural born citizens.
Instead of allowing people to define natural born citizen however they
like, just as they have with Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, Ted
Cruz, and Marco Rubio, the framers knew what the definition was because
Vattel had defined the term in his book Law of Nations. From the letter and
other documents, we know that Vattel’s work was studied in the universities
and the framers had it in their possession when they wrote the
Constitution. So, there is no doubt as to the meaning of the term natural
born citizen. So, how did Vattel define natural-born citizens?
*The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society
by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate
in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in
the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to
all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of
what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of
course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his
children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is
therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by
their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the
years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to
the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the
country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a
citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place
of his birth, and not his country. (Emphasis mine)*
“At the time of the framing of our Constitution, the doctrine of coverture
was in effect
<http://thewashingtonstandard.com/natural-born-citizen-and-coverture/>,”
“Under that common law doctrine, husband and wife are one, and the man is
the one! The woman’s legal identity was subdued into that of her husband’s.”
None of this should take Christians by surprise as it is what the Bible
lays out for us in Genesis 2. Additionally, women take on the last name of
their husbands, even today.
Therefore, we conclude that Ted Cruz is not a natural-born citizen.
Additionally, we know that he also held Canadian citizenship, which he did
not renounce until he set his eyes on the White House. He stopped being a
Canadian citizen on May 14, 2014.
Cruz has apparently sealed all of the records that would indicate his
mother’s status. FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests have been
denied. He has also decided to withhold any documentation, such as a Consular
Record of Birth Abroad
<https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html>
(CRBA), which is required by the State Department via Congress if one is
born to a parent abroad and wishes to be considered a citizen at birth.
This is not a natural born citizen because it is conveyed via a manmade
law. Cruz has yet to produce this document, which then leads us to ask the
question, is he here legally. Before you laugh me off, let me ask you, how
do you know someone has gone through naturalization without documentation?
There is a paper trail. Senator Cruz is telling us he is going after
illegal aliens (those without the paper trail, who have not come to the
States legally), and yet, he has produced no CRBA documentation that is, in
effect, naturalization papers.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:23 PM NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
When did the States give up the right to naturalizing state citizens?
