Is Ted Cruz a 'natural born Citizen'? Not if you're a constitutional originalist.

LA Times ^ | 1/10/16 | Thomas Lee

[jpsb]

IIRC until 1934 citizenship was determined by the father since Ted Dad was cuban at the time of Teds' birth Ted would have been considered Cuban in 1788 however since Ted was born in Canada, Canada also has a claim to Ted so in 1788 Ted was either a Cuban or a Canadian (Royal Subject of the King of England) America had no claim via his mother to him.

Has to natural born citizen meaning citizen at birth I present the following

Natural Law is different than government law. Natural Law was referenced in the very first sentence of our founding document.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I say again natural law supersedes government law and natural law is what gave us the right to be our own nation. Government law said the founders were traitors, natural law said they were patriots. Government law says two men can get married Natural Law says marriage is between a man and a woman. Only a Natural (law) Born Citizen may constitutionally serve a President of the United States.

There are three types of citizenship
* Natural Born Citizen, two citizen parents born on soil (exceptions for foreign born if parents are abroad in service to country)
* Citizen by birth, foreign born to citizen parent(s)
* Naturalized citizen, a person made a citizen by statute.

I note on the following

The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

James Madison the "father of the Constitution" changed the wording from "natural born citizen" to "citizen". Madison was no dope and the change was to prevent a foreign born from becoming Commander in Chief. But this also serves to illustrate that "citizen at birth" does not mean "natural born citizen".

See more at
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/harvard-law-review/

A natural born citizen is so because of Natural Law not government laws. Some one born on soil with two citizen parents is a natural born citizen because no other sovereign but the sovereign of the soil he was born on has any claim to his elegance.

[jpsb]

see 61

[Mastador1]

Put ten Constitutional Scholars in a room, ask for a decision based on the Constitution, how many different answers will you get? Sorry, but look at the consensus we have on different viewpoints of globull warming/climate change, how many different religious leaders interpret the Bible differently? I’m not sure what the definitive will be, but it sure works out well for Trump in the meantime doesn’t it? And that’s all Trump really cares about, not helping Cruz.

[Mr Rogers]

“No more time anyone made a citizen via statute is not a natural born citizen (NBC) as NBC was understood in 1788.”

The understanding of what “natural born subject” meant in the 1700s had been shaped by acts of Parliament over the centuries. What makes you think the people who had lived with that understanding didn’t accept that future Congresses might shape a future understanding of NBC?

The Constitution only makes mention of two ways a person can be a citizen - birth and naturalization. It used NBC for one, and “naturalized” for the other. Ted Cruz is a citizen who has not been naturalized - something that takes place AFTER someone’s birth. Thus, it only leaves on category for him to fill.

Blackstone, writing on the meaning of NBS in 1765 - so over 20 years before the US Constitution, giving the definition which the Founder’s had lived with thru their adult lives - said:

“Yet the children of the king’s embassadors 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 embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. 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.

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html

Notice the Founder’s definition of NBS was one that allowed modification by the legislature: “ But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off”.

When Congress changes a definition, they are not acting as a body naturalizing anyone. They are defining what they consider a born citizen to be, and there remains two categories of citizen: born, and naturalized. That had been done for hundreds of years before the Constitution, and the definition the Founders lived with included those modifications - made by adjusting the definition.

For Ted Cruz to be a NBC, the only change to the definition would be to continue what Parliament had already started - to allow a woman to pass on ‘natural allegiance’ and not just the man.

[JoSixChip]

If there are prohibitions on Presidential eligibility for any US Citizen (born of 1 or 2 citizens, naturalized etc.,) then we do, in fact, have millions of second class citizens.

Time to erase this inequality.

Wow, that's an interesting angle I had not thought of. Very good point.

[Captain Peter Blood]

I think the best definition for Natural Born Citizen is this, If you are born of parents who are Natural Born Citizens and born in the United States, i.e. one of the states, then that is the definition.

So under that logic then Rubio and Cruz are not eligible.

[DesertRhino]

No, there is no magic supercitizen status. The Constitution mentions aliens, natural born citizens, and naturalized citizens. There is no other class.

If you gained citizenship by birth, you are natural born. Anything else is pure sophistry and chicanery.

[calisurfer]

Cruz is not a natural born citizen. He can not be president.

[jpsb]

The founders obviously rejected the English means of government as embraced the thoughts of enlightened thinkers like John Locke and Emer de Vattel. The fact that the constitution even and that we do not live under a monarchy indicates to me that I am correct. Ergo I do not believe the founders adopted the English definition of NBS but rather adopted Vattels'

there is a good discussion here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3381836/posts?q=1&;page=101

Well off to do a little work, bye for now.

[RummyChick]

And how many took it out in 1795? Including Madison who came up with the 3 branches of goverment plan.

[HamiltonJay]

There is no doubt that at the time of the constitutions writing, Cruz, nor Obama are Natural Born Citizens.

However, the 1790 immigration act goes on to define natural born... and only required the non citizen parent to have at least been a resident of the US at some point. Since many of the folks who approved this law were folks who were involved with the writing and the ratification of the constitution, and since no court case ever ruled otherwise, it is rather safe to assume that congress had the write to define what a natural born citizen is... and by that standard it has been redefined many times since then to a point where today most folks who are living only need to have 1 citizen parent to be considered natural born citizens regardless of where they were worn on this plant or what nationality their father or mother was at the time as long as the other parent was a US Citizen.

To challenge this would require the challenge of the right of congress to even define what is or is not a natural born citizen... and while interesting, I can’t see that case going anywhere.

So while neither Cruz nor Obama meet the definition of Natural Born Citizen at the time of the nations founding, as far as law goes today, regardless of where on the planet they were born, they are natural born citizens.

Now, as I said if a lawsuit were to actually go somewhere challenging congresses ability to define the term, and it was found they did not have the right to redefine it then it would get interesting, but I can’t see a lawsuit like that going anywhere. And any lawsuit challenging his ability to run under current laws would just be political theater and a waste of time.

Personally I wish they had not touched the meaning in legislation as its intent was ensure no one elected to the presidency had any fealty to any other power or nation. But I am just a one guy out in fly over country.

[RummyChick]

AND it was REPEALED and taken out.

And the fact remains that there is a debate whether they could have even placed it into effect.

See the article by Charles Gordon, author of Immigration treatises and General Counsel for the INS.

You can’t pass just any law to change the Constitution.

[precisionshootist]

"It in inconceivable that the founding fathers would have considered the son of a Cuban born in Canada to an American mother to be a natural born citizen, eligible to be POTUS. In fact they would not have even considered him a citizen of the USA"

Worth Repeating. Over and over.

[rhinohunter]

And yet .... scrubama still has not produced a valid LFBC...

[Mr Rogers]

“Ergo I do not believe the founders adopted the English definition of NBS but rather adopted Vattels’ “

Except Vattel never wrote about NBC. He didn’t in French, and the English translations prior to 1797 used “natives, or indigenes”...and the Constitution doesn’t say the President must be a native citizen, or an indigenous citizen.

Besides - they used NBC and NBS interchangeably before and after the US Constitution was written, which is hard to explain if they didn’t believe they were interchangeable ideas.

[so_real]

Does the Congress have the authority to alter the language of the Constitution through the common legislation process? No. All language of the Constitution retains its "original intent" understanding of the common man at the time it was penned and onward until such time as the Amendment process is exercised to alter it.

Was the phrase "natural born citizen" used in the Constitution? Yes. And as such, it too retains the understanding conveyed to the common man at the time it was penned.

Does the Congress have the authority to define citizenship through the common legislation process? Yes. The Constitution empowers the Congress to provide uniform rules of naturalization to define who can and cannot, who is and is not, a citizen.

Can the Congress bestow citizenship at birth. Yes. And, it has done so granting undeniable citizenship, for example, to anchor babies without the need for naturalization proceedings.

Are the recipients of this form of birthright citizenship "natural born citizens"? No. They are "naturalized by statute at birth" as Congress does not have the authority to alter the original definition of "natural born citizen" without undertaking the Amendment process.

[Abby4116]

And at the time the constitution was written, women were lesser citizens than men (could not vote for example) and the framers never would have taken the mother’s US citizenship alone to bestow upon a child born abroad.

[kiltie65]

“Amazing how now that it’s Cruz the right winger at issue, we get all of this dispassionate, well-researched journalism on the question of the natural born citizenship clause.”

Even more amazing if this plan was thought up by Cruz and Trump in that private meeting they had early on to force the Congress/Supreme Court to legislate an answer. And if it returns the ruling Cruz is ineligible, think of the impact of that on Obummer’s term...everything Obummer did would be overturned. I can dream, can’t I?

[kiltie65]

I’m 100% with on this, Marie.

[Doc91678]

If we have had a Black president, whose birth is still murky beyond all logic elected president of these United States elected twice. Surely Ted Cruz, with his legitimate lineage can be considered for the presidency.