Category Archives: Commentary

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz was born “Rafael Edward Cruz” December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

His mother is US citizen Eleanor Darragh.

His father is Cuban citizen Rafael B. Cruz. (naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2005)

Eleanor Darragh and Rafael B. Cruz were residents of Canada for at least four years from 1970, possibly earlier, until 1974. They conducted business there as Rafael B. Cruz and Associates, Ltd.

He is a natural born citizen of Canada (Canadian Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-19, s. 5(1,3))

Cruz is a naturalized US citizen (8 U.S.C. § 1401(g). Details)

Revised Statutes of Canada 1970:

revisedstatutesofcanada[1]

revisedstatutesofcanada[1]

revisedstatutesofcanadax[1]

revisedstatutesofcanada[1]

revisedstatutesofcanada[1]

Source: https://archive.org/stream/revisedstatutes197001uoft?ui=embed#page/n1098/mode/1up

Links to biographical info

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120428-senate-candidate-ted-cruz-aims-to-pick-up-mantle-of-reagan.ece

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20111025-a-tighter-lipped-cruz-lets-others-fill-in-blanks-on-cuban-fathers-exodus.ece

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/04/08/ted-cruz-father-and-inspiration-talks-about-latinos-conservatives-and-american/

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/04/15/ted-cruz-texas-answer-to-marco-rubio/

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Cruz-s-life-defies-simplification-3946523.php

http://www.mylife.com/l-rafael-cruz-e151894652160

 

Advertisements

Commentary on United States v Wong Kim Ark

Congressional authority respecting citizenship extends to naturalization only.

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4.

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

“Citizen,” “naturalization” and “natural born Citizen” are ALL in the Original, unamended Constitution; therefore, none can mean the same thing.

Marbury v Madison:“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

A citizen by statute can not be a natural born citizen.

Treaties are part of the supreme law of the land.

U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Gray abrogated treaties with China.

Do note that the common law of England is not included, nor are the constitution or laws of any state. (So don’t bother commenting about state statutes, rulings, etc, eg Chancellor Sandford)

Aside from abrogating treaties, Gray applies the “common law” of England. England’s common law is not the supreme law, but foreign law.

Madison letter to Washington October 18, 1787

What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”

Madison called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining terms in the Constitution.

Aside from abrogating treaties and applying English common law, Gray deliberately misinterprets the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 14th Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment explained the jurisdiction clause:

Rep. Bingham:

The Fourteenth Amendment is “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Sen. Trumbull:

“‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Sen. Williams:

Senator during the drafting of Amend. XIV, later as US Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under Amend. XIV “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”

The jurisdiction clause is specifically stated to be political allegiance, not territorial bounds.

Ignoring legislative history Gray “presumes” the intent of the jurisdiction clause:

The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,” and the converse of the words “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word “jurisdiction” in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment make clear that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is political and not geographic bounds, specifically stating “allegiance”. Gray ignores their intent conflating “jurisdiction” in the first sentence with the last. The first sentence confers citizenship, the last sentence applies law. These are entirely different matters, in the first instance political and in the last instance geographical.

Having misconstrued the jurisdiction clause as territorial Gray then proceeds to examine the common law of England.

To lend a sheen of legitimacy Gray cites State v. Manuel:

The term “citizen” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people – and he who before was a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

State v. Manuel is an 1838 case before the North Carolina Supreme Court. The following is the first portion of the paragraph containing the cited sentence:

It has been said that before our Revolution, free persons of colour did not exercise the right of voting for members of the colonial legislature. How this may hvae been, it would be difficult at this time to ascertain. It is certain however that very few, if any, could have claimed the right of suffrage, for a reason of a very different character than the one supposed. The principle of freehold suffrage seems to have been brought over from England with the first colonists, and to have been preserved almost invariably in the colony ever afterwards. In the act of 1743, ch. 1, (Swan’s Revisal, 171,) it will be seen that a freehold of fifty acres was necessary to entitle the inhabitant of a county to vote, and by the act of 2d Sept. of 1746, ch. 1, Ibid. 223, the freeholders only of the respective towns of Edenton, Bath, Newbern and Wilmington were declared entitled to vote for members of the Colonial Legislature. The very Congress which framed our constitution, was chosen by freeholders. That constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of 21, and paid a public tax; and it is a matter of universal notoriety that under it, free persons without regard to colour, claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken from free men of colour a few years since by our amended constitution. But surely the possession of political power is not essential to constitute a citizen. If it be, then women, minors, and persons who have not paid public taxes are not citizens – and free white men who have paid public taxes and arrived at full age, but hove not a freehold of fifty acres, inasmuch as they may vote for one branch and cannot vote for the other branch of our legislature, would be in an intermediate state, a sort of hybrids between citizens and not-citizens. The term “citizen” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people – and he who before was a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.” Considering therefore the defendant as having a right to the protection of the clauses in the constitution and declaration of rights on which he relies, we proceed to the examination of the alleged repugnancy between these and the act of 1831. The 39th section of the constitution is in these words: “The person of a debtor, where there is not a strong presumption of fraud, shall not be continued in prison after delivering up bona fide all his estate, real and personal for the use of his creditors in such manner as shall be hereafter regulated by law.” ….

It is quite clear that Judge Gaston’s references to “our law” and “our constitution” are references to the statutes and Constitution of North Carolina. As North Carolina has a reception statute the cited sentence is true in North Carolina. The same can not be said for the federal government which does not incorporate common law via Constitution, reception statute, or other method. The cited sentence is inapplicable to the federal government.

Gray’s cite of Manuel to justify use of English common law is dishonest.

Gray’s use of English common law is inappropriate:

Jefferson letter to Edmund Randolph, August 18, 1799:

Of all the doctrines which have ever been broached by the federal government, the novel one, of the common law being in force and cognizable as an existing law in their courts, is to me the most formidable. All their other assumptions of un-given powers have been in the detail. The bank law, the treaty doctrine, the sedition act, alien act, the undertaking to change the State laws of evidence in the State courts by certain parts of the stamp act, &c. &c. have been solitary, unconsequential, timid things, in comparison with the audacious, barefaced and sweeping pretension to a system of law for the United States, without the adoption of their legislature, and so infinitively beyond their power to adopt.

Gray ignored legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment and interpreted the intent of the jurisdiction clause territorially rather than politically ignoring the specifically stated intent of its Framers.

He arrogated to himself a system of law “infinitively beyond [his] power to adopt” and erected himself into a legislator deciding “what parts of the common law would, and what would not, be properly applicable to the circumstances of the United States” (Madison letter to Jefferson, Jan 18, 1800).

The holding is binding on lower courts: the SINGLE question of whether Wong was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was answered in the affirmative.

The rationale when erroneous is dicta. It has little value as precedent or guidance and is not binding on lower courts.

Neither Amend. XIV nor WKA touch Art. II’s eligibility requirements.

Conflating citizen, naturalized citizen, and natural born citizen is absurd, such construction is inadmissible.

The True Law of Free Monarchies

A king explains why he should rule and you should bow.

The True Law of Free Monarchies: Or The Reciprocal and Mutual Duty Betwixt a Free King and His Natural Subjects

By King James I of England – 1598

As there is not a thing so necessary to be known by the people of any land, next the knowledge of their God, as the right knowledge of their alleageance, according to the form of government established among them, especially in a Monarchy (which form of government, as resembling the Divinitie, approacheth nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon; Vnitie being the perfection of all things,)…

First then, I will set down the true grounds, whereupon I am to build, out of the Scriptures, since Monarchy is the true pattern of Divinitie, as I have already said: next, from the fundamental Lawes of our own Kingdom, which nearest must concern us: thirdly, from the law of Nature, by divers similitudes drawn out of the same: and will conclude syne by answering the most waighty and appearing incommodities that can be objected.

The Princes duty to his Subjects is so clearely set down in many places of the Scriptures, and so openly confessed by all the good Princes, according to their oath in their Coronation, as not needing to be long therein, I shall as shortly as I can run through it.

Kings are called Gods by the propheticall King Dauid, because they sit upon GOD his Throne in the earth, and have the count of their administration to give unto him. Their office is, To minister Justice and Judgement to the people, as the same David saith: To advance the good, and punish the evil, as he likewise saith: To establish good Lawes to his people, and procure obedience to the same, as divers good Kings of Judah did: To procure the peace of the people, as the same David saith: To decide all controversies that can arise among them  as Solomon did: To be the Minister of God for the weale of them that doe well, and as the minister of God, to take vengeance upon them that do evill, as S. Paul saith. And finally, As a good Pastour, to goe out and in before his people  as is said in the first of Samuel: That through the Princes prosperitie, the peoples peace may be procured, as Jeremie saith.

And therefore in the Coronation of our own Kings, as well as of every Christian Monarchy they give their Oath, first to maintain the Religion presently professed within their country, according to their laws, whereby it is established, and to punish all those that should presse to alter, or disturbe the profession thereof; And next to maintain all the lovable and good Laws made by their predecessours: to see them put in execution, and the breakers and violaters thereof, to be punished, according to the tenour of the same: And lastly, to maintaine the whole country, and every state therein, in all their ancient Priviledges and Liberties, as well against all forreine enemies, as among themselues: And shortly to procure the weale and flourishing of his people, not onely in maintain- ing and putting to execution the olde lowable lawes of the countrey, and by establishing of new (as necessitie and evil maners will require) but by all other meanes possible to foresee and prevent all dangers, that are likely to fall vpon them, and to maintain concord, wealth, and civilitie among them, as a loving Father, and careful watchman, caring for them more then for himselfe, knowing himselfe to be ordained for them, and they not for him; and therefore countable to that great God, who placed him as his lieutenant over them, vpon the perill of his soul to procure the weale of both soules and bodies, as far as in him lieth, of all them that are committed to his charge. And this oath in the Coronation is the clearest, civil, and fundamentall Law, whereby the Kings office is properly defined.

By the Law of Nature the King becomes a naturall Father to all his Lieges at his Coronation: And as the Father of his fatherly duty is bound to care for the nourishing, education, and virtuous government of his children; even so is the king bound to care for all his subiects. As all the toile and paine that the father can take for his children, will be thought light and well bestowed by him, so that the effect thereof redound to their profite and weale; so ought the Prince to doe towards his people. As the kindly father ought to foresee all inconvenients and dangers that may arise towards his children, and though with the hazard of his owne person presse to prevent the same; so ought the King towards his people. As the fathers wrath and correction vpon any of his children that offendeth, ought to be by a fatherly chastisement seasoned with pitie, as long as there is any hope of amendment in them; so ought the King towards any of his Lieges that offend in that measure. And shortly, as the Fathers chiefe ioy ought to be in procuring his childrens welfare, rejoycing at their weale, sorrowing and pitying at their evil, to hazard for their safetie, travell for their rest, wake for their sleepe; and in a word, to thinke that his earthly felicitie and life standeth and liveth more in them, nor in himselfe; so ought a good Prince think of his people.

As to the other branch of this mutuall and reciprock band, is the duety and alleageance that the Lieges owe to their King: the ground whereof, I take out of the words of Samuel, cited by Gods Spirit, when God had given him commandement to heare the peoples voice in choosing and annointing them a King. And because that place of Scripture being well understood, is so pertinent for our purpose, I have insert herein the very words of the Text.

9 Now therefore hearken to their voice: howbeit yet testifie vnto them, and shew them the maner of the King, that shall raigne ouer them.
10 So Samuel tolde all the wordes of the Lord vnto the people that asked a King of him.
11 And he said, This shall be the maner of the King that shall raigne ouer you: he will take your sonnes, and appoint them to his Charets, and to be his horsemen, and some shall runne before his Charet.
12 Also, hee will make them his captaines ouer thousands, and captaines ouer fif- ties, and to eare his ground, and to reape his haruest, and to make instruments of warre and the things that serue for his charets:
13 Hee will also take your daughters, and make them Apothicaries, and Cookes, and Bakers.
14 And hee will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best Oliue trees, and giue them to his seruants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your Vineyards, and giue it to his Eunuches, and to his seruants.
16 And he will take your men seruants, and your maid-seruants, and the chiefe of your young men, and your asses, and put them to his worke.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheepe: and ye shall be his seruants.
18 And ye shall cry out at that day, because of your King, whom ye haue chosen you: and the Lord God will not heare you at that day.
19 But the people would not heare the voice of Samuel, but did say: Nay, but there shalbe a King ouer vs.
20 And we also willbe all like other Nations, and our King shall iudge vs, and goe out before vs, and fight our battels.

That these words, and discourses of Samuel were cited by Gods Spirit, it needs no further probation, but that it is a place of Scripture; since the whole Scripture is cited by that inspiration, as Paul saith: which ground no good Christian will, or dare deny. Whereupon it must necessarily follow, that these speeches proceeded not from any ambition in Samuel…  But by the contrary it is plaine, and evident, that this speech of Samuel to the people, was to prepare their hearts before the hand to the due obedience of that King, which God was to give vnto them; and therefore opened up unto them, what might be the intollerable qualities that might fall in some of their kings, thereby preparing them to patience, not to resist to Gods ordinance: but as he would have said; Since God hath granted your importunate suit in giving you a king, as yee have else committed an errour in shaking off Gods yoke, and over-hastie seeking of a King; so beware yee fall not into the next, in casting off also rashly that yoke, which God at your earnest suite hath laid upon you, how hard that ever it seeme to be: For as ye could not have obtained one without the permission and ordinance of God, so may ye no more, for he be once set over you, shake him off without the same warrant. And therefore in time arme your selves with patience and humilitie, since he that hath the only power to make him, hath the onely power to vnmake him; and ye onely to obey, bearing with these straits that I now foreshew you, as with the finger of God, which lieth not in you to take off.

All men are created equal – versus – kings are gods, a natural Father to all his Lieges upon his Coronation, and the duty and allegiance that the Lieges owe to their King is from the words of Samuel cited by Gods Spirit

(excerpted, some spelling modernized)

A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth – Thomas Jefferson

What is the meaning of this May 1779 Virginia statute?

Let’s examine the first part.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

(available at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html )

Some contend that “all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth” where citizens.

This is incorrect.

Take note of the semicolons:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same;

and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth;

and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed:

And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

It is a complex sentence.

Semicolons are being used as “super commas”. There are several clauses separated by semicolons.

The first clause specifies the general case.

The second clause modifies the first clause by imposing conditions on it.

The third clause specifies a specific case.

The fourth clause specifies a specific case.

A rule of construction is that the specific terms of a statute override the general terms.

The specific terms of the third clause override the general terms of the first clause. Hence, the citizenship of the minor child follows that of the parents.

—–

Addendum

A reader wrote to say that these are modern rules of punctuation.

In 1784 Noah Webster first published his “Grammatical Institute of the English Language”, a brief excerpt of the 1800 edition is here.

Webster’s explanation of the rules of punctuation are taken directly from Robert Lowth’s 1762 book, “A Short Introduction to English Grammar”. A brief excerpt of the 1791 edition is here.

The rules of punctuation have been around a long time.

The Time of Adoption

Article II,Section 1,Clause 5,Constitution of the United States

“No person except a natural born citizen,or a citizen of the United States,at the timeof the adoption of this Constitution, shall beeligible 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.”

This diagram helps clarify who those eligible “at the time of adoption” are.