J_B excellent
On Mar 25, 2021, 15:29 -0600, J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
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,” “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 (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?
