Is Ted Cruz Eligible for the Presidency?

The Daily Signal (Heritage Foundation) ^ | March 24, 2015 | Elizabeth Slattery

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't believe that. And, it won't be a former dentist with a mail-order law degree. It will be a competent team of lawyers paid for by the GOPe and the DNC.

And, they'll know how to shop for a sympathetic judge. Even if they don't win, they will have breathless wall-to-wall coverage from the kneepad media, with the express purpose of instilling enough doubt in primary and general election voters to undermine Cruz.

I'm not going to try to predict whether Ted will prevail or not, but I hope he does. However, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

This is exactly what I have been saying except for the part about it being the GOPe doing it. I said it would be Liberals doing it, and that they don't even need to win in court. All they have to do is get the media to keep repeating the question. The bad publicity will do the rest.

I see this as an all too real possibility.

[DiogenesLamp]

and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It’s been established. He was born here.”—Governor Linda Lingle, May 4, 2010

Translation:

"Take my word for it. No, you can't see it."

[GeronL]

Now qualified to battle jabberwockies

[DiogenesLamp]

The basic rule of common law was was jus soli, not jus sanguinis.

The other basic rule of common law is that you owed perpetual allegiance to the King. I don't think we adopted the "common law" rule for citizenship. That rule applies to subjects, not citizens.

Though it was arguably changed by the 14th Amendment.

Don't know how you can say that. The Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett explicitly said the 14th amendment does not define "natural born citizenship."

And think about it, if the 14th amendment did define "natural born citizen", then axiomatically no other means of defining it would be valid. All those statutory laws (about children born in foreign countries) would be bumping up against the 14th amendment definition. I would say they would have to lose in that case.

An Amendment beats a statute, every day of the week.

[DiogenesLamp]

The first Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which exempted from needing naturalization “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.

You still crack me up with that upsidedown logical double backflip with a half twist. :)

It reminds me of this:

One bright morning in the middle of the night,
Two dead boys got up to fight.
Back-to-back they faced one another,
Drew their swords and shot each other.
One was blind and the other couldn't see,
So they chose a dummy for a referee.
A blind man went to see fair play,
A dumb man went to shout "hooray!"
A deaf policeman heard the noise,
And came and killed those two dead boys.
A paralyzed donkey walking by,
Kicked the copper in the eye,
Sent him through a rubber wall,
Into a dry ditch and drowned them all.
(If you don't believe this lie is true,
Ask the blind man -- he saw it too!)

[DiogenesLamp]

It depends on your definition of “dogged.” Obama was sued 28 times in state or federal courts over ineligibility.

Not really. It was just a legal dog and pony show. No real weighing of evidence took place. It was all for the cameras.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is, in fact, interesting that they felt these children needed a law to define their status, which strongly implies that it wasn’t defined in the Constitution itself.

This is what I was thinking about that as well. Obviously they didn't consider this group covered under whatever it was they regarded as the proper meaning, because if they had, they wouldn't have felt the need to make a law to address this lack.

That they created a law is proof that they didn't regard this group as being covered under existing law.

[DiogenesLamp]

The fifth section of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 gave Congress the power to define citizenship. Section 5. “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

And this assumption is what I would call a "non sequitur stretch."

[Nero Germanicus]

The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30, enacted April 9, 1866, was the first United States federal law to define US citizenship and it affirmed that all citizens were equally protected by the law. It was mainly intended to protect the civil rights of African-Americans, in the wake of the American Civil War. This legislation was enacted by Congress in 1865 but vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. In April 1866 Congress again passed the bill. Although Johnson again vetoed it, a two-thirds majority in each house overrode the veto and the bill became law.

[Nero Germanicus]

What cameras? None of the civil suits was televised. If you don’t want a legal dog and pony show, you use the CRIMINAL court system not the civil courts.
Civil llawsuit trials tend to be dog and pony shows.

[Sun]

I read many Rand Paul supporters are pushing this nonsense about Cruz.

Even Rand Paul (who I do NOT support) said he is not a birther.

[Spaulding]

I share your skepticism Mama Texan. We have sparred with some clever Obots, demonstrating both their erudition and that the end justifies the means. Hard to tell how many have grasped the subtle difference between citizen “by” birth and being “naturalized” “at” birth, as are all of those, including Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Nikki Haley (who has refused to be drawn in to the subterfuge).

Like most of you, as much as I like almost everything Ted Cruz says, he would not be a permanent president, and I believe the Constitution should be. I keep hoping Cruz will use his eloquence to clear the fog, and finally explain to those who will listen that of course the Constitution didn’t define the term natural born citizen. Its authors intentionally didn’t include definitions, as James Madison explained, because languages change over time. To preserve the meaning of its framers, a truth based upon natural law which they felt was eternal, the Constitution must be interpreted with the language familiar to its framers. Chief Justice Waite explained in Minor v. Happersett, “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.”

We are seeing the mindless drone from those repeating the nonsense about the 1790 “Act to establish an uniform rule for Naturalization”. First, it is a “Naturalization” rule, not a natural born citizen rule. Only the president must be a natural born citizen, and not a naturalized citizen. Naturalized at birth means naturalized. The 14th Amendment’s authority comes from Article 1 Section 8, the naturalization provision of the Constitution. Second, words mean things; the First Congress Act says “shall be considered as”, not shall be, or are natural born citizens. I never forget Bill Clinton’s famous maxim “it depends upon what is is.” Bill was correct. Justice’s Marshall, Waite, Jay, Hughes, Gray, and many more cite Vattel. Minor didn’t cite Vattel because Chief Justice Waite knew he was creating precedence. All the justices deciding Minor v. Happersett agreed. Second, anyone who actually reads the First Congress’ Naturalization Act should have noticed that it was rescinded, entirely replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act in which “natural born citizen” was replaced by “citizen.”

Harvard’s two operatives lied, never mentioning the reversal of their keystone citation. Harvard’s Larry Tribe and former Solicitor General Ted Olson, in their letter in which Obama, Leahy, McCaskill, Clinton, waved their hands in April 2008, Senate Resolution 511, to say sure, McCain has a few problems, but the framers didn’t really mean or understand the implications of what they said. Democrat law professors pointed out earlier that the Canal Zone had not been declared, as embassies are, sovereign territory until the year after McCain was born - an unfortunate oversight. Obama and McCaskill tried earlier to pass what might have become an amendment, Senate Bill 2678, Feb 2008, The “Foreign born Children of Military Citizens Natural born Citizen Act”. That act failed to pass, but had some merit. I agree with the sentiment, but note that it was McCain’s opponent who was sponsoring that act. Why did they want to run against John McCain?

I would like to see an amendment crafted to make Cruz eligible. We have time. But to ignore the Constitution, while I too will vote for an ineligible Cruz if he runs, is wrong. Democrats could, and I think they will, challenge the eloquent Cruz’ eligibility with Warren, or Hillary, or how about Holder, or Kerry? Republicans will have spent the effort to elect he inelibible Cruz. The law is clear, even if so many prefer to ignore it. Who is more culpable, the Democrats, Pelosi, the only person to sign any document asserting that Obama is a natural born citizen, or the Republicans, who knew the truth all along, three of them having tried to amend Article II Section 1 between 2001 and 2006 (Hatch, Rohrabacher and Nickles, along with Democrats Conyers, Menendez, and Barney Frank).

Anyone who really wants to understand the legal history behind John Jay’s note to Washington should spend some time at Mario Apuzzo’s remarkable blog puzo1.blogspot.com. His legal scholarship puts Harvard’s sellouts to shame. He uses reasoning and clear citations to demolish the earlier Tribe letter and the recent Katyal/Clement Harvard Law Review propaganda. Katyal and Clement carry on, and get quoted by the “authorities”, citing the 1790 Naturalizaton Act - the one that was rescinded in 1795.

While it may seem off topic, these discussion remind me of the observation by M. Stanton Evans, who died very recently, that during the war on Joseph McCarthy, a series of attacks on McCarthy mostly sourced at the New York Times mentioned the vicious attacks by McCarthy on American film directors by his House Un-American Activities Committee. But McCarthy was a Senator, and had nothing to do with those famous hearings! The Times never admitted their mistake, or lie. They probably figured, as so many liberals, that true or not, McCarthy was a scoundrel. Those lies were a means to an end. I’ll leave the end goal of the Harvard phonies to guess at in another thread.

Our foundations have been preserved on paper and I hope more will take the time to read a bit. I suggest that any who haven’t actually read Minor v. Happersett, the unabridged version, do so. Wong Kim Ark is a mess but Minor, written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite is brilliant and clear, as brilliance allows. The clincher of its importance came when Leo Donofrio and friends noted that Soros/Podesta’s Center for American Progress had collaborated with the largest free legal document site, Justia.com, and corrupted some twenty five cases that might have pointed curious questioners at the truth that Minor v. Happersett was treated as precedent by the Supreme Court. The CEO of Justia.com admitted that it had been done, but claimed a programming error! Sure. Many of us grabbed the “Wayback Machines” earlier version of the cases that proved the crime was perpetrated some time during the Summer of 2008.

Read Mario Apuzzo’s historical blog, where Mario, as good attorneys do, corrects legal misdirection and provides citation. The law should be logically consistent. You needn’t be a lawyer to understand good reasoning, and Mario isn’t trying to mislead.

[cynwoody]

The intent is to deny the Presidency to a foreign prince, such as the liberal Prince Henry of Prussia, and it does.

A real life example of the phenomenon was Maximilian I, Emperor of Mexico, a nation which lacked a constitution with that critical natural-born clause.

After a distinguished career in the Austrian Navy, Maximilian entered into a scheme with Napoleon III of France to rule Mexico. With the support of the French army and a group of Mexican monarchists, Maximilian traveled to Mexico where he declared himself Emperor of Mexico on 10 April 1864.

The Mexicans lacked a proper constitution, but thankfully they made up for their oversight with their impeachment procedure, which was even more cut and dried than that of Oliver Cromwell:

[captmar-vell]

if a Manchurian candidate Sunni Muslim, American loathing fly-infested unclean spirit inhabiting the body of a Jakarta street kid and sporting a fake social security number and having at least three baby daddy’s from as many nations (maybe more) is eligible,

then yeah, Ted Cruz wont need a do over on the Koran when reciting the oath of office, Justice Roberts can sleep in the next day, even safely spend time with his adopted kids maybe,

[Arthur McGowan]

Read that statement again. It says “we went looking” for a birth certificate, and that “we issued a statement.”

Notice that it DOES NOT SAY THEY EVER SAW A BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

The Democrat governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, said he was going to find a birth certificate, and later said there isn’t one.

Nothing can change the fact that the “birth certificate” put out by the White House is a crude forgery. This in itself is evidence that no real birth certificate exists.

[MamaTexan]

Excellent post! I've read Apuzzo’s work. It's a solid piece of research.

I like Cruz as well, but his recent announcement of being a 'statutory natural born citizen' pretty much dashed any hopes I'd had of him clarifying the subject. Statutory natural born...what kind of Constitutional oxymoron is that? LOL!

-----

anyone who actually reads the First Congress’ Naturalization Act should have noticed that it was rescinded, entirely replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act

I know! That 'this is what the Founders intended' works great, but when they turn around and repeal it just a few years later, it's pretty certain the 'intent' was merely to coincide with the grandfather clause, NOT to operate in perpetuity.

----

The 14th Amendment’s authority comes from Article 1 Section 8, the naturalization provision of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment, IMHO, is another provision of limited duration. While it was never repealed, sovereignty CANNOT supplant sovereignty, so the only ability the federal government would have to declare anyone a citizen inside the country but outside the Authority of the several States was those who had none - the freed slaves.
Why? Because Nature abhors a vacuum.

----

I also agree that the original definition has been purposely muddled, as I've seen information 'disappear' or change on the Internet over time. Wong Kim Ark is always promoted as some kind of 'proof' being born here was enough to be natural born, but actually reading it shows as masterful a job of judicial cherry-picking as I've ever seen ...resulting in the creation of the 'naturalized AT birth meme' and country's first anchor baby.

-------

The “Foreign born Children of Military Citizens Natural born Citizen Act”. That act failed to pass

That was all SO dumb. Like Ambassadors and diplomats, people in the armed forces are considered to be in the service of the country no matter where they are. If the politicians hadn't been so desperate to 'tweak' things in their favor, they'd already see Vattel had covered that.

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

-----

No, the whole natural born issue is easily ascertained by reading original works (instead of taking someones word for 'this is what it says'), paying attention to details, and using logic and reason.

Natural born citizenship is hereditary - you get it from your parents. Why? Because you can't be born into a country's Allegiance unless your parents are already there.

[trebb]

I see a bunch did their usual - reacted w/o reading the article.

It's nice to see one that states the truth that Ted Cruz is actually perfectly qualified.

[justrepublican]

In this instance one must look further than only the legal definitions, and look at the spirit of what the issue was, with which the Founders of this nation were concerned .

This is language I hear liberals use to justify there reading- in-to the constitution frequently.

[CatherineofAragon]

Makes sense.

[WildHighlander57]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3059395/posts?page=43#43

Cruz is eligible. If you have any question, take it up with the owner of this site.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3059395/posts?page=89#89

Cruz’ dad is a citizen now. His mom was and is a citizen. Cruz grew up here since he was about 4 years old.

The founders of this country were concerned about foreign royalty coming over and running for president; they had just won a war against king George.