Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

08 February 2016

Sorry, @TedCruz, #FemiNazis Should Be Required To Register For #TheDraft




If women want to be equal and fight 'just like men', then, yes, they should be required to register for the draft. And, suffer all of the consequences that men do if they refuse to do so.

Absolutely no requirements should be feminised. If they cannot do 3 pull-ups, 50 crunches, run 3 miles in 28 minutes, and finish a forced 18 mile march over rough terrain wearing a ruck sack filled with 50 pounds of gear on their backs in 4.5 hours, then they can serve their country in other ways...like the medical corps, the typing pool, or making sammiches.

Feminists always point to Israel and say, 'See, even THEY allow women in combat!' 

Except, as usual, THEY. ARE. FLAT. OUT. DEAD. WRONG.

But a closer look shows Israeli women are not in direct combat special operations such as the Green Berets. Nor are they in front-line combat brigades mobilized to engage in direct heavy combat.
In the infantry, virtually all of Israel’s female combat soldiers are confined to two light battalions — the Caracal and the Lions of Jordan — which are assigned to guard the borders with Egypt and Jordan, the only Arab countries that have peace treaties with Israel.
Uniformed Israeli women patrol the borders or help to train men for combat positions, but these important missions do not involve direct ground combat, meaning deliberate offensive action against the enemy,’ said Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness. ‘None of America’s allies, much less potential adversaries, are treating women like men in the combat arms.’
Israeli women’s assignments are far more restrictive than the roles envisioned by advocates in the United States who anticipate an American military that opens all ground combat units to women, be they Navy SEALs or Army Green Berets or the Marine infantry or Army Brigade Combat Teams. All are deployed to engage in tough, close-in fighting for hours and days at a time.
The Times of Israel said the IDF provided a statement that read, in part, that the 'possibility of opening additional combat positions to girls is being tested all the time.'  AS OF TODAY, 'INFANTRY AND THE ARMOURED CORPS WERE RULED OUT FOR WOMEN.'

Well, if American feminists want to be 'equal' like Israelis, then they need to come out 100% in support of Israel’s Defence Service Law (which would be weird since they hate the country and would love to see it completely defenceless).  The Law states that ALL persons 18 years and older MUST serve within the Israeli Defence Forces.  The law grants certain exemptions, but not just because one is a woman.  Men must serve THREE years.  Women must serve TWO years.

I call ‘Discrimination! If women want ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’, then they should be conscripted for THREE years, too.






'I notice everyone who is in favor of women in close in combat roles always has a caveat that, “Of course the qualification standards shouldn’t be lowered.” Based on what we have seen in the past regarding the perfumed prince top brass in the Pentagon, I’ve gotta say you are very trusting that PC won’t rule the day. Those qualifications will be quietly massaged and most of us will never know it.'

butch on February 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM


I'm not really in favour of women in combat roles.  I am, however, all for giving FemiNazis the 'right' to get shot, have their limbs blown off, get spit on when they return home, and get called murderers and baby killers by everyone from members of Congress to their own whackjob family members.

These idiots believe that they are equal.  They aren't.  I am a woman and I suffer under no illusion that I will ever run a four-flat-forty, kick a 63-yard (American) field goal, shoot a round of golf in the low 60s (or even low 80s), and I will never, ever, evah be able to bench press 400 pounds.  Almost every woman's body is different from a man's.  Now, there are some Amazon-types that could kick the asses of puny nerds with taped glasses and pocket protectors.  But, all in all, we are different.

FemiNazis, and their fellow travelers, are all into this 'fluidity' craze. 






True Story from Canada: If you are a 52 year-old married man named Paul with 7 children, you can become a 6 year-old transvestite homosexual named ‘Stefonknee’ and be adopted by a married couple with children and grandchildren.  Stefonknee wears little girls’ dresses and plays with ‘her’ adopted parents’ natural grandchildren…even as ‘she’ carries on an extramarital, ‘incestuous’, and homosexual affair with his/her adopted father.  When ‘she’ isn’t sucking on ‘her’ pacifier, she is sucking on daddy’s…






Of course, ‘she’ is being celebrated and called a ‘Pioneer!’ in the LGBTQQIP2SAA world both in Canada and globally.

Next up, Stefonknee will proclaim that she is really a 6 year-old female feline (‘Furrykin’) of African origin.  At that point, I think she’ll have just about all of ‘The Other’ boxes checked.


































06 February 2016

Trumpster Divers Don't Know Nothin Bout Birthin Natural Born Citizens




Please let me define 'Trumpster Diver': It does not encompass every Trump supporter.  It refers to those that will take a dive for Trump.  Where private property rights once meant something to them, Trump's support of the Kelo decision (using eminent domain from individual (usually poor or middle class) property owners to sell it for $1 to another individual or business (usually very wealthy) and the Monuments Act (because the Federal government needs MORE and MORE land...it just doesn't own enough, especially of the West). I could go on and on and on, but you get the drift.


The “birther” idea was that Obama was born in a foreign country to an American mother and a foreign father.

People mocked “birthers” saying, “no, he was born in Hawaii, look at the birth certificate”.

Cruz, on the other hand, was most definitely born in a foreign country to an American mother and a foreign father.

Would you have been fine with Obama becoming president had he actually been born in Kenya?

Redstone on February 5, 2016 at 4:16 PM


Yes, and so would the Supreme Court.







Cruz-not a natural born citizen

Rubio- anchor baby

enough said

gerrym51 on February 6, 2016 at 4:17 PM


You're right.  Enough idiocy said.

Rubio was born in the United States to permanent, legal residents.  That makes him a natural-born citizen.

As to Cruz, I am really getting tired of having to repeat this, but you Birthers have learning difficulties...

The controlling law is Rogers v Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), not Vattel.

Aldo Mario Bellei was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother.  According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Aldo Mario Bellei was a natural born citizen of the United States from the moment he took his first breath.

At some point between his birth and the law suit, Congress passed a law that required all natural-born citizens to reside within the United States for a period of sixteen years.  It was because he failed to meet this requirement that he was stripped of his American citizenship, not just his natural-born citizenship.

IIRC, this law was repealed.  In Ted Cruz's case, however, it would be irrelevant. Cruz father came to the US on a student visa to attend the University of Texas at Austin. When that visa expired, he was granted political asylum and permanent, legal residency in the United States.  He entered the oil and gas business.  Cruz's mother was born in Delaware and attended Rice University in Houston.  She was a brilliant mathematician and data analyst.  In 1969, while they were working at an oil company in New Orleans, they met and married.

For those unaware, Alberta is a huge O&G E&P area and those that can accurately read seismic data are in high demand.  The Cruzes moved to Calgary and opened their own seismic and date processing firm.  At this point, Mrs Cruz was a natural-born American citizen. Mr Cruz was a citizen of Cuba, but a permanent, legal resident through asylum in the United States.  Their son, Ted, was born on 22 December 1970.  At that point, neither of his parents was a Canadian citizen.

Unlike Aldo Mario Bellei, Ted Cruz left Canada at the age of three and spent the next 42 years of his life residing, being educated, memorising the entire COTUS, debating, graduating cum laude from Princeton University and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, marrying, fathering two, beautiful little girls, representing private clients, gaining the freedom of an innocent man, who spent almost two decades on Angola State Penitentiary's Death Row, argued against allowing the UN to open 51 death row cases (over the objections of Governor George W Bush), served the people as Solicitor General and Senator.

If Aldo Mario Bellei was a natural-born citizen of the United States of America, who lost his citizenship because he failed to reside within the country for 16 years, then guess what?

So is Ted Cruz, whose mother was an American citizen, and he has spent a helluva lot more time living, working, and participating in American society than any 16 year requirement. 

Now, as an aside, the Naturalization Act of 1790 passed by the First Congress stated:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….

As I've demonstrated, Rafael Cruz WAS a resident of the United States. He did not become a Canadian citizen in 1973 - three years after his son's birth.   He became a naturalised American citizen in 2005.

Eleanor Cruz has never renounced her American citizenship.  There are only SEVEN specific ways to renounce your American citizenship and they all involve overt and voluntary actions.  The applicable law on surrender or forfeiture of citizenship is Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481). It states that Americans citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts are:

1. Obtain naturalization in a foreign state (and this does not apply to dual citizenship, which is perfectly legal. See: Afroyim v Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) and Vance v Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980); (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA) .
2. Take an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA).
3. Enter or serve in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA).
4. Accept employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA).
5. Formally renounce U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA).
6. Formally renounce U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA).
7. Be convicted of an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).


The allegation that Eleanor Cruz's name showed up on some voter roll is definitive evidence of NOTHING. First of all, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and others routinely show up on our voting rolls, along with scores of dead people and those who moved away decades ago.  Secondly, many countries allow legal, permanent residents to vote in local, county and provincial elections.  Hell, in the United States, some localities even allow ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO VOTE.  Unless Mrs Cruz took one of the 7 affirmative and voluntary steps to renounce her American citizenship, she is as American as are you.  If you believe otherwise, then the philosophic (and legal) burden of proof is on you to produce evidence to the contrary, which supports the claim that Mrs Cruz renounced her citizenship.  Until such proof is produced by either you, the American or Canadian government, rumours, lies, suppositions or 'Please, God, let this be true!' prayers mean absolutely nothing.

Given the SCOTUS' growing liberal bent on citizenship since World War II, I hope Trump and his Merry Band of Birthers put their money where their mouths are.  Not only is it almost a certitude that SCOTUS will find Rafael Edward 'Ted' Cruz a natural-born citizen and eligible to run for the Presidency of the United States, those challenging it will either find their suits summarily dismissed or denied and fines assessed for filing frivolous lawsuits (ask Orly Taitz how that works).

As for Mr Trump, I'll see your Tribe and raise you the SCOTUS, two former Solicitor Generals of the United States of America, and one constitutional law professor, who not only taught at Harvard for 50 years, but had Tribe as a student, Alan Dershowitz.  When asked about Cruz, he said he was absolutely brilliant and 'by far one of the best students that I have ever had.'  He has lathered similar, though not as thick, praise on Elizabeth Warren.  Interestingly enough, Dershowitz never mentioned Tribe.

HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM: 'On the Meaning of 'Natural Born Citizen' written by former United States Solicitors General Neal Katyal (Al Gore and Barack Obama's lawyer) & Paul Clement (Bush's lawyer and one of the most respected and prominent conservative attorneys and members of the Supreme Court Bar in the country).






Now, let's break this down so that a 5th grader can understand it, according to the Supreme Court:

Bellei + born in Italy + to + Italian father + American mother = NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN

:: Citizenship revoked because he did not spend the (then) requisite 16 years in America

But, according to some hardheads:

Cruz + born in Canada + to + Cuban father, but PLR of the US + American Mother = NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN

:: EVEN THOUGH HE HAS LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES, BEEN EDUCATED IN THE UNITED STATES, WORKED IN THE UNITED STATES, VOTED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND REPRESENTED THE UNITED STATES ALL OVER THE WORLD.

And, before anyone even starts, the primary issue in Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), was a Fourteenth Amendment challenge concerning the right of women to vote. The Court held that such prohibitions did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. All of the discussion about natural-born citizenship was irrelevant to the holding and was, therefore, dicta.

You guys can cite Minor v Happersett until you are blue in the face and die from a lack of oxygen and it will change nothing. The 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution effectively overruled the case in whole.

Its dicta is irrelevant. Its opinion on natural born citizenship has never been controlling law. The current controlling law on the matter of natural born citizenship, pour la plupart, is Rogers v Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). And, it reflects the thinking of the First Congress save for granting equal protection under the law to women, which Congress did in 1934.


'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...'


Get used to it and stop looking to Orly Taitz for legal advice.

U.S. Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad

Trumpster Divers Don't Know Nothin Bout Birthin Natural Born Citizens...

...But, They Will Take A Dive For Trump And Believe Whatever He Tells Them.







Neither situation has ever had a court ruling. the democrats can sue-and as we know from court decisions-you never know.

gerrym51 on February 6, 2016 at 5:12 PM


The Supreme Court has already ruled that a child born overseas to an American mother is a natural-born citizen AT BIRTH.  The Constitution currently requires three things for a person to be eligible to become POTUS:

Article II, Section 1:
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.


*****


'what we do know-at the time it was adopted ‘natural born citizen’ was an american father(women were considered husbands property at the time) and born on US soil. as time has progressed all sorts of laws changed and added'



Yes, the laws have changed.  Women aren't chattel (I know. It breaks your heart).  They, unlike prior to 1934, can alone confer citizenship upon their children and, if those children are born overseas, they are as natural-born citizens as are you.  Further, once they reach the age of 35 and if they have resided in the US for 14 years, they are eligible to become President of the United States of America.

As I have said on several occasions, if the newborn in the cot next to me at St Mary's had at least one American parent, s/he was a natural-born American citizen.  I, on the other hand, could never be even though we were born in the same hospital because neither of my parents were American citizens.  That baby may have spent his or her entire life in Britain, but as long as he or she returns to America and resides here for 14 years, s/he could be your next POTUS.  I've already resided here for more than 14 years and you'll never have to worry about me occupying an office I wouldn't want even if I were eligible.  Be thankful for small favours.

As I wrote in Just Say "No!" To Birtherism!:


There are only two types of American citizens: Natural-Born and Naturalised.


NATURAL-BORN AMERICANS, ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT:


George Romney: Born to two American parents in Mexico, but registered immediately with the American consulate and never a Mexican citizen.

Senator John McCain:  Born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone.

Barack Obama:  Born to an American woman in THE STATE OF HAWAII – or, if you believe he was born in Kenya, born to an American woman on foreign soil, WHICH MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, AS WE WILL SEE.

Senator Marco Rubio:  Born to two legal, permanent residents on American soil.

Senator Ted Cruz: Born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, who had been a long-time resident of the United States and given political asylum and legal, permanent residence there. Rafael Cruz did not become a Canadian citizen until his son was 3 years old and became an American in 2005.

Governor Nikki Haley:  Born to two immigrants [I'm unsure if they were LPRs or naturalised at the time] on US soil.

Senator Michael Bennett:  Born in India to two American parents).

Congressman Chris Van Hollen: Born in Pakistan to two American parents employed by the State Department.

Bobby Jindal, former Governor of Louisiana:  Born to two legal, permanent residents.

All of the above were/are ALL eligible to be President of the United States. In fact, even though Puerto Rico doesn’t have any votes in the Electoral College, its former Governor Luis Fortuño and present its present Governor Alejandro García Padilla are both eligible to run for the Presidency, too. Puerto Ricans were awarded US citizenship under the Jones–Shafroth Act of 1917.

Rubio, Cruz, Haley, Bennett, Van Hollen, Jindal, Fortuño, and Padilla are ALL eligible to run for the Presidency because they will ALL be 35 years of age or older in 2016 and are Natural-Born citizens.



NATURALISED AMERICANS INELIGIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENCY:


Henry Kissinger, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State to two Presidents:  Born in Fürth, Bavaria to German Jews during the Weimar Republic.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor: Born in Warsaw to two Polish parents.

Tom Lantos, the late Congressman Tom Lantos and Holocaust survivor: Born in Budapest to two Jewish parents in Hungary (He was sent to a labour camp, from which he escaped. He was saved by one of the most famous Righteous Among The Nations, Swedish diplomat and humanitarian, Raoul Wallenberg.

Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State: Born in Prague to two Jewish-cum-Roman Catholic parents, who were fervent supporters of the Benes government. When Hitler came to power, they were forced into exile.  They moved to London where Ms Albright’s father worked for Benes’ government-in-exile.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, actor and former Governor of California: Born in Thal to two Austrian parents, including a father who voluntarily fought for the Nazis.

Jennifer Granholm, former Governor of Canada, former Miss San Carlos, and presenter on Al Gore’s failed CurrentTV: Born in Vancouver to Canadian parents. Ms Granholm is Swedish through her paternal line, ja! She is of Norwegian descent through her maternal line, ja, ja!

Myself: Born in the UK to two British parents.

None of us will ever be eligible to become President without amending the Constitution, which I am not advocating.   But, the baby in the cot next to me at St Mary’s Hospital would be not only a natural born citizen, but eligible upon reaching the age of 35 and residing within the United States for 14 years, if one of her parents were, in fact, an American citizen.

Before we get into a further discussion of the law and legal history, let me ask you to square this for me.  Your hero, Donald Trump, says that when an illegal immigrant crosses the border and drops a bambino, that child is not a natural born citizen.  At the same time, however, you claim that two legal, permanent residents of the United States cannot give birth to a natural born citizen on American soil (Marco Rubio).  Then, even more absurd, you claim that when an American (natural-born citizen) woman (and her husband, a Cuban with political refugee and permanent, legal resident status in the United States) gives birth to a child in Canada that child is not only NEITHER a natural-born citizen or American citizen, BUT A NATURAL- BORN CANADIAN CITIZEN.

Hmmmm….

Mexican woman gives birth on American soil – Baby isn’t American. It’s Mexican.

American woman gives birth on Canadian soil – Baby isn’t American. It’s Canadian.

You guys can be such fucking morons at times.

Anyhoo…

Here’s the controlling law:

THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALISATION ACT OF 1940, 8 USC § 1401 – NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF UNITED STATES AT BIRTH:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person Born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person Born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person Born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person Born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person Born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been Born in the United States;
(g) a person Born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person:
(A) honourably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons Born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person Born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.


Source:  (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301,66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12,Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a),Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)

Mrs Cruz was an American citizen.  Mr Cruz was a Cuban citizen, but one with permanent residency in the US, which the Supreme Court held was sufficient to convey natural born citizenship on a child with permanent resident parents in United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).  One must not be so obtuse as to think that one American and one permanent resident parent would not have conveyed citizenship at birth, also known as natural-born citizenship, upon their children.

The Founders would have been familiar with Blackstone’s Commentaries. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, described Commentaries as ‘a book which is in every man’s hand’ when he was at Virginia’s ratification convention. In Commentaries, Blackstone wrote:

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-Born subjects. Natural-Born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are Born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.
. . .
Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men Born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves.
. . . 
When I say, that an alien is one who is Born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.
To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. (enacted in 1351) that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants.
But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.


So, even in Commentaries, there was no requirement to be born on sovereign soil; provided, the issue was allegiance to the king and there was no requirement for both parents to be citizens since Blackstone addresses fathers only.

Seemingly, Blackstone’s understanding of citizenship law was derived from the line of common law that originated with Calvin’s Case, which was a decision by the Court of Common Pleas and reported by Lord Coke in 1608.   Calvin’s is a complex and complicated case, which was summarized by FB Edwards in an article he wrote in 1914 entitled Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law.  Edwards wrote:

The question before the Court [in Calvin's Case] . . . was whether Robert Calvin, the plaintiff, a Scottish Subject of King James I., who was born after James's accession to the English throne, was an alien; the unanimous finding of the judges was that he "was no alien . . . ." It is important to remember that at the time when that case was decided the feudal or territorial conception of nationality was practically universal throughout the world; or, at least, that that conception was operative in both England and Scotland as far as the acquisition of the local nationality at birth was concerned.


Edwards continued:

The concept of allegiance to the sovereign at birth (as noted by Blackstone), then, was the fundamental criterion for who was-and was not-a natural born subject. The notion of natural born subjects under British law was tied to the idea of natural allegiance to a sovereign. Natural allegiance was based primarily on being born within the territory subject to the sovereign's rules. But it could also be based on being the children of Ambassadors or children of Sovereigns themselves: members of these groups were considered to have a natural allegiance to the sovereign.


James Madison, who is considered to be the ‘Father of the Constitution, was one of many signatories to the Declaration of Independence, who were in Congress and voted for the Naturalisation Act of 1790 that passed and was signed into law by President George Washington.  For purposes of this discussion, the pertinent part read:

‘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…’


There was NO NEED for naturalisation because a child born to an American was considered to be a natural citizen FROM BIRTH.


As Lawrence Sollum wrote in Originalism and the Natural Born Citizenship Clause:

Those learned in English law, however, understood another aspect of the concept of "natural born subject." Children of the sovereign were natural born subjects wherever their birth occurred. The issue of the king owed a natural obligation to their father; likewise, the children of the king's ambassadors were deemed to owe a similar obligation to their parents' monarch. But in republican theory the people are sovereign, suggesting that the republican conception of natural born citizens would naturally treat the children of citizen-sovereigns as equivalent to the children of a monarchical sovereign or king. This understanding may have been reflected in the first naturalization act of 1790 "An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization," which provided "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." Because the First Congress passed this act, it arguably reflects the original understanding of "natural born citizen" as encompassing those born of the citizen-sovereigns on foreign soil.


With regard to the oft-cited case, Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), it is no longer good law because it was, effectively, overturned by the Nineteenth Amendment and should also not be cited as dispositive in any way, shape, or form on the matter of the definition of natural-born citizenship since the Court, specifically, stated:

‘These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.’


Thus, the acknowledgement by the Court in 1875 of the debate over what constitutes a natural-born citizen in a case involving a woman, who was born on American soil to two United States citizens and who was making an Equal Protection argument for suffrage, should not be looked to as controlling law on matters of citizenship.  First, the holding - the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer upon women a right to vote - was overturned by the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, women's suffrage.  Secondly, even if the case was still good law, the most that could possibly be said of the discussion of natural-born citizenship is that it was dicta and is not controlling law.   Finally, in actuality, the Court's passing reference to natural-born citizenship does NOTHING to further the arguments made by ‘Birthers’ considering the FACT that the Court, SPECIFICALLY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION, ruled that it was unnecessary to settle the debate and solve the doubts held by those that believed natural-born citizens had to be born on United States soil to two American citizens.


From the Congressional Research Service:

‘Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to a parents who is an American), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth.’


From Citizenship of the United States, written by Frederick van Dyne, the Assistant Solicitor of the US Department of State in 1904:

"There is no uniform rule of international law covering the subject of citizenship. Every nation determines for itself who shall, and who shall not, be its citizens.... By the law of the United States, citizenship depends, generally, on the place of birth; nevertheless the children of citizens, born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, are also citizens.... The Constitution of the United States, while it recognized citizenship of the United States in prescribing the qualifications of the President, Senators, and Representatives, contained no definition of citizenship until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, in 1868; nor did Congress attempt to define it until the passage of the civil rights act, in 1866.... Prior to this time the subject of citizenship by birth was generally held to be regulated by the common law, by which all persons born within the limits and allegiance of the United States were deemed natural-born citizens."

In 1971, the Supreme Court in Rogers v Bellie, 401 U.S. 815, 829 ruled:

‘But it (the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment) has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.



Let's "Just say 'No!' to Birtherism"!!!  

It makes everyone look nuts.




Cruz, whose ambitions National Review reported Wednesday, wasted no time chiseling a niche for himself as a champion of conservatism: opposing gun-control legislation and expressing skepticism toward immigration reform.
There is, though, one question that nags at his possible goal of reaching the White House: Does Cruz, who was born in Canada, meet the constitutional muster of being a natural-born citizen? Cruz and a number of legal scholars say yes, but it’s an answer that begs for explanation.
The Constitution has only a few requirements for aspiring executives. Presidents must be at least 35 years old, have lived in the U.S. for 14 years, and be a “natural born Citizen.” Cruz is 42. Check. He’s lived in Texas for more than 14 years. Check. But the definition of what it means to be a natural-born citizen has never been decided in the courts and the Constitution doesn’t explain exactly what it means by “natural born,” according to Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor and citizenship-law expert.
“These questions get decided in the court of popular opinion,” said Spiro, who added he thinks Cruz counts as a natural-born citizen. “Why deprive ourselves of having the opportunity to choose somebody on the basis of that kind of formality?”
Cruz argues he fits the requirement because his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. “I’m a citizen by birth,” Cruz said in an interview with Sean Hannity in March.
He was born in Calgary, Alberta, on Dec. 22, 1970, to a Cuban-born father, Rafael, and a Delaware-born mother, Eleanor. Both of his parents were in Canada working in the oil industry. They and Cruz moved to Texas, where his parents went to college, when the future senator was 4 years old. Federal law says that people born outside the U.S. to a parent or parents who are citizens and who have lived in the country are considered citizens at birth.
Some news organizations have taken a whack at answering this question as well. The Texas Tribune, for instance, said confidently in August 2012 that Cruz could be considered a natural-born citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen. “Bottom line: Despite being born in Canada, Ted Cruz can be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen,” the Tribune wrote.
Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz agreed. “Of course he’s eligible,” he told National Review. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen,” said Eugene Volokh, who’s a friend of Cruz.
Still, his Canadian birth means he’s also technically a Canadian citizen, according to Naomi Alboim, a professor who studies citizenship at Queen’s University in Ontario. But even if Cruz were to openly claim his Canadian citizenship along with his U.S. citizenship, that wouldn’t legally prevent him from becoming president. There’s no statutory bar to the presidency for dual citizens.
“Is it a wrinkle?” Spiro asked. “I think the answer is no.”


******


'Cruz is NOT a natural-born Canadian citizen and I direct Ms Alboim to see above the Canadian law.  He was not a Canadian citizen at birth. He was an AMERICAN CITIZEN AT BIRTH.
Cruz was a terrific student. He was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view. He didn’t strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian. He had brilliant insights and he was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responses.
Cruz’s views were always thoughtful and his responses were interesting. I obviously disagreed with them and we had good arguments in class. I would challenge him and he would come up with very good responses. Cruz’s career has not surprised me. I thought he would go on to accomplish important things.
His movement toward social conservatism has surprised me a little bit, people will change and perhaps when you are at Harvard Law School you are less likely to espouse a socially conservative point of view.
Cruz was an outstanding student in my class. Without a doubt he is among the smartest students I’ve ever had… I’ve had great students but he has to be at the top of anyone’s short list, in terms of raw brain power.’
- Constitutional Law Professor, Allan Dershowitz




On my team, I have 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 Alan Dershowitz, Eugene Volokh, the Gary T Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, and more.





PS: Canadian birthright citizenship is covered in Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, which states that: 

3. (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if (a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977; 

Ted Cruz was born on 22 December 1970. 

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/section-3.html


Related Reading: