Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

Cato Institute ^ | August 26, 2013 | Ilya Shapiro

[SoConPubbie]

This article appeared on Daily Caller on August 26, 2013.

As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas — love him or hate him — continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret: Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

(Full disclosure: I’m Canadian myself, with a green card. Also, Cruz has been a friend since his days representing Texas before the Supreme Court.)

But does that mean that Cruz’s presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards, having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate?

No, actually, and it’s not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency. (The Founding Fathers didn’t want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)

What’s a “natural born citizen”? The Constitution doesn’t say, but the Framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.

There’s no ideological debate here: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson — who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases — co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain’s eligibility. Recall that McCain — lately one of Cruz’s chief antagonists — was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth — as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later (“naturalizes”) or who isn’t a citizen at all — can be president.

So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.

That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 — Cruz was born in 1970 — someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.

So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there’s no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn’t have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn’t have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else. (For those born since 1986, by the way, the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years, at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)

In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldn’t be in doubt. As Tribe and Olson said about McCain — and could’ve said about Obama, or the Mexico-born George Romney, or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater — Cruz “is certainly not the hypothetical ‘foreigner’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.”

[highball]

When I concluded in post 300 That Natural Born Citizen means, a person born of citizen parents both mother and father loyal only to the USA. That was a contextual conclusion based the logic of the framers.

Yes. Unfortunately, it's counter to what the Founders actually wrote into the Constitution, and also counter to at least what one prominent Founder, James Madison (who knew a thing or two about our greatest document) believed.

Guesses and extrapolations about intent can never trump their actual clear words.

[Constitution 123]

"it's counter to what the Founders actually wrote into the Constitution""""

You and I read the same words. To me they are quite clear. Yet you think they mean something they don't mean.

I have an idea.... Let others here read what I wrote in post 300 and then read your reply. Most with sufficient grey matter will agree with me.

[highball]

There we go.

Childish personal insults reveal a lack of faith in your argument.

I don’t blame you - the argument is emotional piffle, PC nonsense and frankly very unworthy of both you and the forum.

Enjoy your penumbras. I’ll stick with what the beautiful document actually says.

[Jim Robinson]

He’ll be getting my vote too. If Cruz runs and he’s the strongest conservative running, FR will be Cruz Country. And I believe millions of patriotic grassroots tea party conservatives will be right there with us.

[Constitution 123]

""""Childish personal insults reveal a lack of faith in your argument."""""

Thank you so much for your analysis of my subconscious motivation. And also, thanks for not blaming me. I feel so much better now. It is hard to believe that you're providing this service for free!

But seriously, the reality is quite opposite.... I am confident in my position with regards to the intent of the framers when they authored the NBC eligibility requirement for president.

The fact that you think that I was childishly and personally insulting you when I just said that people with grey matter will agree with me, may be something for you to think about.

[WildHighlander57]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3059031/posts?page=295#295

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3059031/posts?page=305#305

...Point of Wilson is that no divorce from Wilson was found. ...”

Two points to consider:

A)There didn’t have to be a divorce of Eleanor and a guy named Wilson for her name to be Wilson.

Did Eleanor’s mom remarry?

Did Eleanor’s name change from Darragh to Wilson as a result of that?

B) in addition to the Texas statute presuming the husband is the father, there was (and still is) common law marriage in Texas.

So there doesn’t necessarily have to be anything on record in a county in Texas .

Situation in B) could be true for Darragh to Wilson and Wilson to Cruz.

[BigEdLB]

As my late mother said about people of dubious origins, “A buzzard laid him on a tree stump”. This does explain Obama, be the buzzard be in Kenya or Hawaii