Okay, now define natural born citizen and show us how Ted Cruz isn’t one.
I can admit that I have no credentials and nothing new to add to this discussion; however, I think I am at least enough familiar with the principle issues contested in the argument to provide a basic summary.
The framers used the phrase “natural born citizen” not “person born a citizen” although the latter was certainly an option that might have occurred to them.
The choice of those specific three words could imply that they had a specific meaning in mind for the phrase—that it was for them a term of art that held a particular application not contingent upon however congress may varyingly legislate the conditions of citizenship throughout the Republic’s future that then lay still ahead.
If they did indeed choose the words they did because they had a specific meaning in mind, it is at least plausible (I think most likely) that they meant to
invoke the definition of Vattel’s “naturels” which he defines in his Law of Nations as those born in that country of which their parents were citizens. We know that the founders depended heavily upon the ideas of Vattel as they broke new ground in establishing this Constitutional Republic. Also in the very early English translations of Vattel’s work, the word naturels was rendered “Natural born citizen”.
On this point many will counter that the framers had perhaps instead meant to invoke the idea behind British legal scholar Blackstone’s “Natural Born Subject” which was broader. However, the founders saw a crucial distinction between the meaning of “subject” and that of “citizen.” The former is deemed such in service to and under the dominion of the monarch, while the latter implies privilege and to some extent responsibility are owned by the individual. Thus “subject” denotes all people upon whom the king may make some claim as beholding unto the throne and as such would naturally seek to apply to a broader class of people than the idea of citizenship. The framers intentionally preferred “citizenship” for founding documents since it conveyed the idea that the individual is the privileged stake-holder in his country, not a being living and serving unto the pleasure of his king.
One of the key factors in support of reading Vattel’s meaning in Article II is the fact that in Minor v. Happersett, the supreme court’s decision specifically connected the term “natural born citizen” with the meaning found in Vattel. The decision went on then to add that whether lesser conditions were sufficient to designate one to be a “citizen” (not natural born citizen) was less certain. The implication of their language in determining whether the plaintiff was a citizen was that the term “citizen” was uncertain or in doubt because it could be variously construed, but that the subclass of citizen, “natural born citizen” had a specific definition which they stated was “never in doubt”. Thus it seems very reasonable to interpret the earliest and perhaps most prominent time when natural born citizenship was contemplated by the Supreme Court as declaring the exact meaning Vattel had in mind. If so, it would seem Obama and Cruz are excluded. And that would be the case despite whatever statutory legislation is in effect to regard them citizens at the times of their births. Again, as Mr. Apuzzo said, why would this phrase of the Constitution be subject to being redefined at the whim of congress without the need to meet the burden required for amending its meaning in any other significant way.
For what it’s worth the quotation from the LA Times attributed to an immigration judge you mentioned near the beginning of this thread doesn’t seem to state an opinion specifically with regard to whether or not Cruz is a “natural born citizen.” Yes, I know it’s implied, but I mean to make the point that there is only one office in America impacted by the the natural born citizen clause. Immigration judges may be interested all day long in who is a citizen and and by what virtue a person is a citizen, and even on occasion perhaps whether a person is born a citizen, but an immigration judge never has any practical cause to contemplate much less make a ruling upon whether a person satisfies the framers specific “natural born” criterion.
Sorry if you were already familiar with all of that. I just got the impression that some here, including perhaps the original poster, were not up to speed on some of the complexities that come into play regarding the “natural born citizen” debate. Though I am not as confident as Mr. Apuzzo and lack the legal training from which he draws, I personally am inclined to interpret historical, linguistic and literary evidence as indicating that the framers never intended that their idea of natural born citizen would apply to people born under the circumstances Obama or Cruz—or even Chester Arthur—were born under.
Thank you. That is exactly what I want our Congress &/or SCOTUS to do - definitively and finally. It is their job, not mine.
“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” – U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark