Replies

"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

In general I agree with your position. But there is a problem with applying this quote directly to Cruz.

At the time of the Constitution, the common law of the states viewed the citizenship of husbands and wives quite differently. In fact, a wife was often considered to automatically take her husband's citizenship upon marriage, since the two were legally considered to be one person under the doctrine of coverture.

IOW, there is considerable question whether under constitutional original intent Cruz (and Obama) would have inherited American citizenship from their American mothers under jus sanguinis. I believe Obama was a citizen under jus solis, but Cruz obviously is not.

During the 19th and early 20th century Congress passed laws that automatically stripped women of US citizenship when they married a man of foreign citizenship, at least if they resided outside USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_Act_of_1868

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_Act_of_1907

These provisions were repealed in 1922, so it obviously doesn't apply directly to Cruz, but its passage indicates very strongly that as late as 1907 the citizenship status of women, and therefore their ability to pass citizenship to their children via jus sanguinis, was viewed as being changed by marriage to an alien in a way that a man marrying an alien did not affect him or his children. Which implies that inheritance of citizenship from mother as opposed to father would have been viewed differently by the Founders.

At the time of the Constitution, the common law of the states viewed the citizenship of husbands and wives quite differently. In fact, a wife was often considered to automatically take her husband's citizenship upon marriage, since the two were legally considered to be one person under the doctrine of coverture.

You are correct.

IOW, there is considerable question whether under constitutional original intent Cruz (and Obama) would have inherited American citizenship from their American mothers under jus sanguinis. I believe Obama was a citizen under jus solis, but Cruz obviously is not.

You are correct.

During the 19th and early 20th century Congress passed laws that automatically stripped women of US citizenship when they married a man of foreign citizenship, at least if they resided outside USA.

You are correct. Actually, some women who were born in the United States and never left the country were stripped of their natural born US citizenship.

These provisions were repealed in 1922, so it obviously doesn't apply directly to Cruz, but its passage indicates very strongly that as late as 1907 the citizenship status of women, and therefore their ability to pass citizenship to their children via jus sanguinis, was viewed as being changed by marriage to an alien in a way that a man marrying an alien did not affect him or his children. Which implies that inheritance of citizenship from mother as opposed to father would have been viewed differently by the Founders.

You are correct.

Now, having acknowledged all of what you said, we need to return to Bayard's original, and main point.

His main point was that you didn't have to be born in the United States to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

It was only required, Bayard said, that a person be a CITIZEN BY BIRTH.

Then he added that this was the case with all children of US citizens who had ever lived in the United States.

It is also the case with Ted Cruz.

So it matters not that the criteria for who was a CITIZEN BY BIRTH have changed somewhat from the Founding Era until now. Ted Cruz is every bit as much a CITIZEN BY BIRTH as anyone who was a citizen by birth in Bayard's day.

Quoting Jeff, who's misleadingly quoting Bayard as though Bayard supports Jeff's position:

"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

Sheman Logan says:
In general I agree with your position.

Then you are wrong. Here is the ruling made by Secretary of State Thomas F Bayard (James Bayard's son. James Bayard taught Son Thomas the law, and Son Thomas worked with father James at his law practice for many years.)

United States Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard.

There is more at this link.

Bottom line, the considered opinion of the United States Secretary of State, and Son of James Bayard who wrote the book above quoted was that a child must have an AMERICAN father (or one undergoing the naturalization process) to be regarded as an American citizen.

Thomas Bayard is quite clear on this. There is no fudging or getting around the fact that the requirement of an American father is an absolute necessity according to Thomas Bayard.

Which implies that inheritance of citizenship from mother as opposed to father would have been viewed differently by the Founders.

It was viewed differently. The 1790 Congressional legislation to which many refer included the following caveat:

Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.