It May Have Looked Like A Destroyer, But It Was Really A Cruz Ship
The Free Republic Birthers got a wake up call yesterday from Jim Robinson, the crusty owner of the website. On a thread about the individual who made a Birther out of himself at a Mark Levin book signing, Judge Robinson settled the Ted Cruz eligibility question for the Freepers:
Jim Robinson at Comment 43: Ted Cruz was born to an American mother. He’s a natural born citizen and patriot in every sense of the word and I will support him to the hilt if he decides to run and is the strongest conservative running!! In fact, if that happens, FR will be Cruz Country!!
Go, TED, GO!!
FU Tokyo Rove, Chris Cristy, Jeb Bush, McCain, McBoehner, McGrahammesty, McFlake, McConnell and ALL GOP-e RINOS!!
The tea party rebellion is on!!
Anyone can’t live with that (as the say in Russia) tough shitski!!
and, when hit with the typical Birther ” But we’re just constitutionalists!” claims:
Jim Robinson at Comment 89: I’m upholding my oath. Cruz is a natural born citizen despite any claims to the contrary from the legions of internet “sea lawyers!”
and again, when asked, “Do you intend to ban those Conservatives that disagree with you on this matter”
Jim Robinson at Comment 91: Depends on the degree of nastiness. Don’t get nasty against our freepers or our conservative candidates.
and, when pushed some more:
Jim Robinson at 126: I said if Cruz is the strongest conservative running. But neither Cruz or Palin have declared. We’ll have to wait and see. And as far as I’m concerned, I’ll go with Levin and others who say Cruz is a natural born citizen.
Robinson had more to say, but I just wanted to provide enough to get across the gist of what happened. Here is a link to the thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3059395/posts
I was once a Freeper, but when I jumped on the two citizen parents Birthers there, I got the ZOT! There is a link in Note 1 below to the article I wrote in response, which has some undercover photos of the Freeper Birthers in full whine mode. Jim Robinson has several problems on his hands, and not easy ones to solve. He has flatly decreed, and correctly, that Ted Cruz is eligible. Yet, he has not come right out and told the Birthers to knock off all the “two citizen parents” stuff.
By the very nature of things, it is not the “birth certificate” Birthers who have a problem with Cruz, unless they are also “two citizen parents” type Birthers. And frankly, the two citizen parents Birthers are beyond reasoning with. They have repeatedly lost in court, and are not fazed. Their argument is nonsensical to begin with. What person with a functioning brain really believes that Emer de Vattel is the source of American citizenship law??? Yet, they persist in the silliness.
What reasonably intelligent person can’t read the Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case a half dozen times and get the point, that the 14th Amendment put natural born citizenship for those born inside the country into the Constitution, where it would be safe from both either state and Congressional tinkering? It make take several readings, but goodness, two of the seven sections are dedicated to natural born subjects and natural born citizens. Another section is dedicated to showing how the 14th Amendment affirms and incorporates that previous law into itself. And still, the two citizen parents birthers are out there trying to defeat an 1898 SCOTUS holding with a 1758 legal treatise by a Swiss guy. Or some legal dictionary they found at a garage sale. Or, some case prior to 1898, which even if they were reading it correctly, would be reversed by WKA.
To paraphrase John Donne, from his Love’s Alchemy poem, “Hope not for mind [reason] in Birthers!” And to make it worse, it is not as if the Obots and Anti-Birthers aren’t doing their best to educate the poor addled two citizen parents birthers. We write words enough to stretch to Pluto and back, and they still ignore us. Jim Robinson is delusional if he thinks anything short of banning them or completely censoring them for preaching their nonsense is going to stop them.
That is where his second problem comes in. Because the longer they preach the “two citizen parents” nonsense, the more it sinks into the minds of low information voters. It will not matter to many of them that the nonsense is being presented against Obama, and not against conservative candidates. They will repeat the nonsense as if they know what they are talking about, and then refuse to vote for people like Bobby Jindal, Marc Rubio, or Ted Cruz. If he cares about his conservative causes, Robinson must tell them to knock off all the two citizen parents nonsense period, or get banned. He has already let this nonsense go on for too long, and the longer it goes on, the worse it gets for Cruz and others.
Finally, he has the problem of how to go about banning or zotting them with a straight face. He had no problem setting forth restrictions on rampant paranoia like Alex Jones’ Prison Planet, and overtly sovereign citizen theories. He didn’t let that stuff ever take hold at his website. It is different with the Birthers because he shares responsibility for letting them get to this point. At Free Republic they formed a clique and went around screaming Troll! and Obot! at people who disagreed with them. Some of us got zotted. Free Republic became Birther friendly territory.
And fertile ground it was. Some of the dumbest Birthers I ever met took root and grew at Free Republic, including but not limited to: Edge919, DiogenesLamp, and Butterdezillion. Robinson should have put his foot down a long time ago, the same as he would have if a group was telling Freepers they didn’t have to pay income taxes. But he didn’t, and now the place is full of them.
In summary, half measures won’t work, the Birthers continue to do damage to the conservative cause, and they are in large enough numbers that it will hurt the website to ZOT! them all. The best alternative I can see is for him to resort to outright censorship. He needs to flatly state that the two citizen parent stuff is complete bullsh*t, and anybody who preaches it, and misleads other conservatives, even if it is in relation to Obama, is going to get the ZOT!.
It should be interesting to watch.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Note 1. Squeeky’s Free Republic ZOT!: Like I said above, there are photographs of the Birthers!
The Birther Think Tank 
August 28th, 2013 at 2:03 pm
Unanimous decision in Minor v. Happersett”
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. 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.”
August 28th, 2013 at 3:35 pm
Presidential eligibility in Minor v. Happersett
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
There you go dumbo, if you’re born a citizen you’re eligible, if you gain citizenship later, you aren’t. Tied right into Presidential eligibility…directly from your favorite case. 😀
September 16th, 2013 at 12:27 am
Dicta, dickhead.
September 17th, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Lawler,
Wasn’t that part of the the opinion written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite in the unanimous decision?
Here’s something I know you’d be interested in and appreciate that I passed it on to you: September is National Chicken Month
You owe me 1
September 18th, 2013 at 10:14 am
It does not matter if dicta is part of a unanimous opinion, it is dicta, not precedent. The issue of whether children of aliens were citizens or natural born citizens was not before the Court which is why the Court said it would not address their status. Hence, no Court ever has, or ever will, cite Minor on the status of native born children of aliens as the Court specifically declined to address such issue. The Court did say to look to the common law, it just didn’t address the status of all classes of persons under the common law.
August 28th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
LoserJim,
This is sad. After all the lessons I’ve given you on this and you still haven’t caught on. Sheesh! You’ve been a big disappointment.
You’re saying the same thing as Hamilton: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Do you know what the founders thought of Hamilton’s Art.2 eligibility requirement for president?
August 29th, 2013 at 2:12 pm
DumboIke: “You’re saying the same thing as Hamilton:”
Hey Dumbo, it isn’t me saying it. Its the SCOTUS…in fact it is the exact same case as you quoted. So, since you seem to like that case so much, they’re the ones that are telling you that you’re full of it. Sorry Dumbo, those are the facts.
August 30th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
LoserJim,
You’re trying to make the terms look the same. It’s a fact the founders rejected Hamilton’s “hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States” for John Jay’s “No Person except a natural born Citizen”. Meaning that all those “born” after the ratification of the Constitution only those “natural born Citizens” would qualify, and not “born Citizens”.
That tells you the terms had to have different meanings or there would of been no reason to reject what Hamilton proposed. To be a natural born Citizen, one has to be born in the country to citizen parents.
See how easy that is. Even someone with an IQ hovering around the level of plant life should understand that.
Should we change your handle to “SlowJim”?
August 30th, 2013 at 2:23 pm
DumboIke: “It’s a fact the founders rejected Hamilton’s “hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States” for John Jay’s “No Person except a natural born Citizen”. ”
Not according to SCOTUS. Now who should I believe more, the SCOTUS or a keyboard warrior like DumboIke who has proven time and time again to get facts, history, and the Constitution wrong? Hmmmmmm….I think the country will go with SCOTUS.
August 31st, 2013 at 4:47 pm
SlowJim,
You should believe John Jay who was the 1st chief justice of the SCOTUS.
Jay sent the letter with the requirement “No Person except a natural born Citizen” to George Washington who was overseeing the Convention. Washington replaced Hamilton’s “born citizen” with Jay’s “natural born citizen”.
You know my facts are always right. Are you saying Washington & Jay are wrong? You’re taking on some heavy hitters when you call them liars.
August 31st, 2013 at 5:21 pm
Ike,
John Jay’s letter does not define “natural born citizen”, so nothing we’ve argued contradicts the sentiment he expressed in his letter, nor is there any indication that Hamilton’s language and Jay’s language would have resulted in substantive differences in who was eligible. In fact, John Woodman made a pretty credible argument that Hamilton was John Jay’s source as to what was going on in the debates on the Constitution.
September 1st, 2013 at 11:54 pm
I presented historical facts on what happened, and you give your theory that “born citizen” is the same as “natural born citizen”. Citing Woodman doesn’t help you, his argument was theory.
September 3rd, 2013 at 8:56 am
Why do you keep repeating the same lie? You have to know by this point that Hamilton’s language was never presented to the Convention. It is amazing that people like you just keep repeating falsehoods over and over.
And, I also can’t understand why anyone think’s Jay’s letter defines the term in any way contrary to the English rule or even Hamilton’s language. Jay doesn’t say what he thought a “strong check” would be and to say he didn’t mean the English rule is just telling another lie. I guess that’s all you can do.
September 3rd, 2013 at 11:31 am
Hi Ballantine!!!
You need to check out the Legal Insurrection post that went up today finding Cruz and Rubio eligible. I just finshed an article on it. He makes the same dicta mistake on WKA that occurred a year or two ago on the Turley blog post:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
September 5th, 2013 at 8:54 am
Ballantine,
I didn’t state that knowing it to be a lie. Sources I’ve read said that Hamilton’s proposal of “born citizen” was rejected by the Founders in favor of Jay’s “natural born citizen”. I’m guessing you’re going by what Max Farrand, a history professor, claimed. Is there anything written in the historical records during that period to back up his claim?
Is it your theory that “born citizen” & “natural born citizen” were viewed by the Founders to be the same? Is there something written in the historical records for that period that will substantiate what you’re claiming?
Both LoserJim and Slartibartfast have done alot of spinning in their comments to me so I don’t bank on anything they say.
September 5th, 2013 at 10:15 am
What sources said so? Someone on the internet. You can look at Max Farrand or any of the notes of the Convention and you will never see anyone discuss “born citizen.” Here is the draft Hamilton presented to the Convention:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp
The draft you are citing is what Hamilton showed to Madison AFTER the Convention.
And, under English law, someone born a subject was called a natural born subject so it is possible the framers thought they meant the same thing but such debate is pointless since there is no evidence they ever considered such language.
September 5th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
I was too busy to find the citation before. The draft Hamilton constitution with the “born a citizen” language comes from Madison’s papers. It is actually in Madison’s handwriting as is a caption saying that Hamilton gave it to him at the close of the Convention.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tFJSVfX2MPAC&pg=PR16&lpg=PR16&dq=%22The+caption,+as+well+as+the+copy+of+the+following+paper%22&source=bl&ots=_Tkxw4g3vz&sig=sPJ5x_vLW0bEf_VV3q3U-k17yrw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1cYoUr-KD8jEtQaa-YDICg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20caption%2C%20as%20well%20as%20the%20copy%20of%20the%20following%20paper%22&f=false
September 10th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Ballantine,
I don’t believe it’s saying what you’re claiming.
Madison’s notes: Page xvi, No.5., last sentence: “He {Hamilton] had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.”
Stated in different words: Hamilton gave to Madison his outline for the Constitution. The principles of that outline he STATED DURING THE DELIBERATIONS.
It’s your theory that the Framers of the Constitution meant natural born citizen to be the same as the ECL’s natural born subject.
Jay’s suggestion of “natural born citizen” was meant to be the strong check to foreign influence.
My theory is the Hamilton & Jay collaborated on the terms prior to the Convention. Both of them were reading Vattel.
There is no evidence that I can find that even hints at the terms citizen, born citizen, and natural born citizen were viewed as being the same with the founders/framers of the Constitution.
In a pamphlet the historian David Ramsay publishes in 1789 he defines natural born citizen as being “born in the country to citizen parents”.
September 11th, 2013 at 9:08 am
That is the editor, not Madison, saying the draft was consistent with the principles he stated during the Convention. He obviously was not saying everthing in the draft was discussed. Again, there are detailed notes on the Convention. There is no evidence Hamilton ever discussed the subject.
You can speculate all you want. You have no evidence that either Jay or Hamilton were reading Vattel. If you actually did research, you would find the term “natural born citizen” when use during such period was always given its English meaning. There is no evidence that anyone in the US defined it differently prior to thge Civil War. The framers did debate eligibility for Congress and the only check they discussed was a native birth requirement.
Ramsey didn’t define “natural born citizen.” He was a sore loser who wrote a paper with his own theory of citizenship to disqualify his rival for the seat. Madison himself told Ramsy he waqs wrong and his argument was rejected 38 to 1. Not a very good authority to cite.
September 14th, 2013 at 11:01 am
Houston, we’ve got a problem. Me thinks Ballantine is doing a little spinning on this.
Ballantine,
Why you being a killjoy? I had to go back through alot of the material I looked at years ago to clear up some of the statements you’ve made, and also see if I misunderstood it. The main one, but not the only one, I used and did some research from was the one on Free Republic that has been continually added to since 2008. On that one it says Hamilton suggests the requirement be added. Then if you go to Hamilton’s papers, Volume 5, page 407; it has his draft for Constitution of Government which has Art. IX with his requirement. Then at the end of the draft it has “Brief of Speech On Submitting His Plan Of Constitution.” I took that as when he submitted his draft on June 18th he gave a speech on it. That would agree with the statement made by the editor of Madison’s notes.
You are right about Madison’s notes. I looked at Volume I June 18th and don’t see it. How thorough was Madison on his notes? Was he only taken notes on what was spoken? If the draft was submitted on a paper would there have been notes on it?
Jay & Hamilton were both reading Vattel. Keeping in mind it has nothing to do with Obama, and at time he was probably practicing his Alinsky as a community agitator, here’s an excerpt from a 1997 article on Hamilton: “A number of Hamilton’s key initiatives show how Vattel’s The Law of Nations shaped Hamilton’s thinking and actions, and thereby shaped the founding of the United States…..Following the Revolution, he qualified himself to practice law in New York State, in record time, and it was while studying for the New York bar examination in 1782, that Hamilton first read Vattel’s The Law of Nations. James Duane supervised his studies, and lent Hamilton his law library. Duane had been an influential member of the Continental Congress, where he was a staunch ally of Benjamin Franklin. Following his studies under Duane, Hamilton began quoting Vattel in his writings. Duane placed his praise for Vattel into the court record in the Rutgers v. Waddington case, over which he presided as judge, while Hamilton appeared for the defense.”
You’re trying to downplay Ramsay’s importance to the founding period. He was a delegate twice to the Continental Congress prior to the Convention when they were debating the problems with the Articles of Confederation. He served as Chairman of the Congress during Hancock’s absence. Besides his pamphlet in 1789 he wrote a two volume “History of the American Revolution.” In the pamphlet he explains the difference between subject & citizen [there’s the evidence]. I just read again Mario Apuzzo’s essay on Ramsay defining “natural born citizen” which I believe explains it.
September 16th, 2013 at 10:14 am
So, instead of saying you were wrong that the Covention rejected Hamilton’s language, you now are speculating that perhaps Hamilton introduced such language and Madison and all the other delgates who took notes forgot to mention it. Sure. Maybe they said the language came from China and forgot to mention it. The notes include the actual paper that Hamilton submitted on June 18 as they say “The following paper was read by Colonel Hamilton, as containing his ideas of a suitable plan” and such outline was not all that similar to the paper he later gave Madison. Its principles may have been consistent, but that doesn’t mean that any particular piece was discussed. Sorry, there is no evidence such language was ever before the Convention.
And seriously, why do you think the fact that Jay and Hamitlon read Vattel proves anything. You seem to not understand what a logical argument is. Jay and Hamilton were trained as English lawyers on Coke and Blackstone and their state, NY, adopted the common law after the revolution like every other state. That by itself deosn’t mean any particular provision of the Constitution is based upon the common law. Why would the fact that sometimes cited Vattel mean any provision of the Constitution is based upon Vattel. Is the 2nd amendment? The 5th? The 8th? Nope, those are all from English law and the fact people read Vattel sometimes does not change that. Indeed, there is no evidence that any provision of the Constitution was based upon Vattel. None. Do you not know that the law of nations, i.e., international law, is a very narrow field only applicable to internation conflicts and is competely irrelevant to 95% of our legal issues? Such is why you will see it so rarely cited in early case law as it is simply not relevent to most domestic issues.
And exaggerating the status of Ramsey misses the point. He wrote a paper with a citizenship theory that would disqualify his opponent and sent it to all members of Congress hoping to over-turn the election. They rejected his protest 38-1 with Madison himself saying to was wrong. The whole affair is more proof that Ramsey’s theory was not accepted at such time which is further supported by the fact that his paper doesn’t ever appear to have been cited by anyone as being accurate. You should try citing authority that helps you case, not hurt it. And, sorry, he didn’t define “natural born” no matter what Apuzzo says. We have seen all of Apuzzo’s argument and quite frankly they are embarrassing. Indeed, Squicky has argued circles around him.
September 17th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
Ballantine
I’ve looked at it again. The following is how I understand it, and I don’t see what I’m missing:
It’s stated in Hamilton’s papers “Brief of speech on submitting his plan of Constitution”. In other words, he submitted his plan for the Constitution which was on paper to the body of founders who were at the Convention on that day. When he submitted it he gave a speech on the principles of it. For whatever reason it wasn’t brought up for debate thus Madison didn’t make any notes on it.
The editor of Madison’s notes is saying that Hamilton would have wished that his draft for the Constitution would have been proposed by the Convention. In other words, the body of founders at the Convention had in their possession his plan for the Constitution.
I can only take that as he did submit it, otherwise the editor would of said “Hamilton would of wished he had proposed it”.
I’m not the authority on any of this. I’m trying to understand it and get it right.
Lets clear this up then I’ll respond to the rest of your post & Prof Jacobson
September 18th, 2013 at 10:10 am
Just give it up. Madison did record Hamiton’s speech before he read what he called his sketch of the Constitution.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp
So you are reduced the arguing that Madison and all the other note takers just missed the part about citizenship. Sure. What are the odds of that? Perhaps Hamilton said “born a citizen” meant the same thing as natural born citizen and Madison just missed it. Speculation is not evidence of what happened.
I don’t even get your second point. There is no way that language indicates the founders had such document in their possession. It makes perfect sense that he wished the final document proposed by the Convention would have matched his personal draft that he later gave to Madison. Hamilton made clear that the brief sketch of a Constitution that he did read to the Convention on June 18th was not meant as a draft for them to consider but was to show a more correct view of his ideas. According to Madison’s notes:
“He did not mean to offer the paper he had sketched as a proposition to the Committee. It was meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose to the plan of Mr. R. in the proper stages of its future discussion. He read his sketch in the words following:”
September 18th, 2013 at 10:30 am
BTW, Hamilton speech on June 18th was also recorded by Yates:
http://books.google.com/books?id=fwDqMPxRdlkC&pg=PA393&lpg=PA393&dq=alexander+hamilton's+papers+%22june+18th%22&source=bl&ots=Q-usRsZCiP&sig=xxm6WJolMOeB5JXYq2ZHvLidvg4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fcQ5Uv6rHcHi4AOE2oDIBg&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=alexander%20hamilton's%20papers%20%22june%2018th%22&f=false
September 18th, 2013 at 11:14 am
And Max Farrand says this:
“The document that has just been discussed is to be distinguished from the following, which was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton.”
October 14th, 2013 at 5:50 pm
Ballantine,
Unless Hamilton had 2 different drafts, then everything you’ve said is about as clear as mud.