Posted on 11/28/2015 8:27:12 AM PST by Kaslin
Texas Senator Ted Cruz has been rising in the polls of late, not only in Iowa, but nationally as well. (And high time, if you ask me.) It’s far too soon to declare him a resident of the top tier aside Trump with so few samples, but the prospect of his being a serious contender for the nomination can’t be discounted. And if he wins the Party’s endorsement, he may be in fine shape to take on Hillary Clinton and then be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. So then what?
Well, at least according to Alan Grayson, we should file a beautiful lawsuit to challenge his qualifications to hold the office. (Mediaite)
Florida Congressman Alan Grayson told radio host Alan Colmes Wednesday that if Ted Cruz is elected president, he "will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he's unqualified for the job" according to the Constitution.
Cruz was born in Canada to a native-born American mother, making the presidential candidate a dual Canadian-American citizen. It was not until a 2013 Dallas Morning News article that Cruz acknowledged his Canadian citizenry publicly. In 2014, the senator renounced his Canadian citizenship altogether.
Lamenting the "appalling choices" Republicans have to choose among, Grayson told Colmes the Republican race "resolved itself into this weird reality show."
Even if Grayson is just grousing and looking for a way to throw darts at Cruz, I think this is a great idea and we should absolutely move forward with it in the event that Ted Cruz is elected. In fact, it should start the day after he’s sworn in because this would no doubt take quite a while. I don’t say this because I have any doubt that Cruz would qualify under our current interpretation of the law.. he would. Under Title 8 rules we have what is currently a broadly accepted definition who who qualifies as a natural citizen at the time of their birth as opposed to someone who is naturalized. Cruz would most likely qualify under section (e) but most certainly under section (g)
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years
There’s just one problem with deciding that Cruz is qualified based on that snippet of legislation: it’s never been challenged all the way up through the courts and this issue keeps coming up over and over again. I’m not even talking about Barack Obama here; you may recall that Congress actually had to go to the trouble of passing a resolution in 2008 stating that John McCain was a natural born citizen. (McCain was born in Panama to a military family on assignment and his parents were citizens.)
So why not just pass another amendment like that for Ted Cruz? Because it doesn’t solve anything. The phrase natural born citizen is essentially unique in the writings of the Founders and they didn’t do a very good job of explaining themselves. If we had a ruling from the Supremes to put into the books not just on Ted Cruz in particular, but on the exact meaning of the phrase we could be done with this once and for all. It seems self evident that the Founders drew a clear distinction between two types of citizens; natural born and naturalized. Cruz, like McCain, never went through the naturalization process since it was always assumed they were citizens at the time of their birth, so they are either natural born citizens or they’re illegal aliens.
No matter how often we scratch our heads over the various rulings handed down from the Supremes these days, I can’t see where we lose on this one. Let them nail this thing down once and for all so we can be done with it without having to go through another constitutional amendment. It won’t affect President Cruz one bit and we can spare future generations all of this nonsense.
Can one formally and permanently renounce citizenship in another country in a manner that becomes official and public record in both countries? Or is it like politicians in my state that claim to renounce their pay increase or their pension, while they can likely regain it anytime the wind or their whim changes and no one will be the wiser?
Chester A. Arthur was rumored to have been born in Canada. His mother, Malvina Stone Arthur, while a native of Berkshire, Vermont, moved with her family to Quebec, where she met and married the future president's father, William Arthur, on April 12, 1821. After the family had settled in Fairfield, Vermont, William Arthur traveled with his eldest daughter to East Stanbridge, Canada, in October 1830 and commuted to Fairfield on Sundays to preach. "It appears that he traveled regularly between the two villages, both of which were close to the Canadian border, for about eighteen months, holding two jobs", which may well explain the confusion about Arthur's place of birth, as perhaps did the fact that he was born in Franklin County, and thus literally within a day's walk of the Vermont–Quebec border.
This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur's family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his presidency, published a book on the subject.
Arthur was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824, Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880 that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications. Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
They never have publicly QUESTIONED why Barack Obama could never get an actual new social security number, or why he posted a fraudulent BC online!!!!! Or why his selective service document was forged! Or why Pelosi ALTERED THE WORDS when she overrode Hawaii not confirming his citizenship when she signed his eligibility form!! THEY NEVER BOTHERED! But Cruz they will vet!!! Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!
To me, it really doesn’t matter how it is adjudicated. We need a ruling ASAP given the rapidly changing demographics of the country. Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson provided an opinion on the eligibility of McCain at the behest of the Senate, which then issued a Resolution stating that McCain was eligible. But it had no force of law.
Supposedly this was produced by the publicist for his book.
There were articles in the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper during Chester Arthur’s time claiming he was not a natural born citizen. I did a little reading and there were claims that he was actually born in Canada, and that he used his brother’s birth certificate. I have no idea if any of this is true or not, but I do know that one of his parents was Canadian and became an American citizen at some time after his birth. It is a fine distinction, but there is a great difference between a natural born citizen and a native born citizen. If the founders wanted our president to be natural born, so do I. Children of military members born overseas not in military hospitals are not considered natural born. Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico to two American missionaries. He was not natural born. And although he was the Governor of Michigan he never attempted to run for president. Barry Goldwater was born in the Territory of Arizona and not natural born. Both McCain and Goldwater received acts of Congress, and Obama was included with McCain. I did some reading of scholarly material written by Leo D’Onofrio, an attorney, on natural born citizenship before Obama’s first election. Both parties are equally guilty of attempting to circumvent the law.
Amazing how the left is worried about citizenship all of a sudden.
News Flash!! Green card holders, legal immigrants do not equal citizens. Why don’t we just throw out all the laws and say anyone can grow up to be President?/s
“Eligibility Requirements
If you are a green card holder of at least 5 years, you must meet the following requirements in order to apply for naturalization:
-Be 18 or older at the time of filing
-Be a green card holder for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization”
http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization/path-us-citizenship
Contained in this database are birth reports from U.S. Consulates abroad between the years of 1910 and 1949. The report form is called A Consular Report of Birth Abroad and is primary proof of the individual's American citizenship. To qualify, the child must have either two U.S. citizen parents with one of the parents having resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth, or one of the child's parents must be a U.S. citizen who has resided in the U.S. for a specified number of years previous to the child's birth.
From the US State Department
A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child's parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child's name.
The procedure is as documented for US Armed forces families at military.findlaw.com but this procedure applies to all US citizens living aboard.
From military.findlaw
If the parents are married to each other, the child is a U.S. citizen if
One parent is a U.S. citizen, and the U.S. citizen parent lived in the U.S. for at least five years prior to the child's birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen.
In Cruzs' case the above is applicable. Then the procedure to acquire "birth citizenship" is:
After the parents have determined that their child is a U.S. citizen, they need to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad at the nearest U.S. consulate. The parents will need to submit an application (PDF), along with documentation proving the parents' citizenship and the record of the child's birth from the resident country. The Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be used later as proof of the child's U.S. citizenship, and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport for the child.
See more at: http://military.findlaw.com/family-employment-housing/military-children-born-abroad.html#sthash.1zXFHWSD.dpuf
Obama was born on US soil, Hawaii. He had to produce proof that is was born in the USA, which he did.
Both McCain and Goldwater received acts of Congress,
No, Congress cannot make that determination. The Senate issued the following resolution:
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 511
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2008
Mrs. McCaskill (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Obama, Mr. Coburn, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Webb) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States;
Whereas the term "natural born Citizen", as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the "natural born Citizen" clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term "natural born Citizen";
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
That John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
You are correct that the resolution was based on the Tribe-Olson opinion that included a statement on the eligibility of Obama. They said that Obama was eligible just being born on US soil and that Hawaii was a state at the time of his birth. When you look at who sponsored this resolution, it is obvious the Dems were using it as a cover for Obama.
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen†includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
All Cruz needs to do is release his FS-240 form.
I’m hearing a lot of it from Trump supporters.
Maybe its time for them to ask him to speak up on the issue. He never shied away from the issue before. He was once going to provide proof of Obama ineligibility. He also once claimed Cruz wasn’t eligible and later said Cruz was eligible.
For those that keep saying all of this is settled law ... all you need to do is listen to an oral argument before SCOTUS. This topic came up. I can’t remember case name but the discussion shows not all Scotus agree. GINSBERG believes her grandson qualifies being born in foreign country.
Why should Chester Arthur not have been president? He was born on October 5, 1829, in North Fairfield, Vermont. To my knowledge Vermont is a US State
At the time of his birth one parent was not an American citizen. Also there was doubt that he himself was born in the US and not Canada.
As the Senate Resolution on McCain says"
Whereas the term "natural born Citizen", as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
The issue has never beem adjudicated.
Not a problem. They’re working on a PDF copy Ted’s birth certificate as we speak...
That’s all that’s required, isn’t it?
“I wonder why he waited so long.”
He said the question had never come up because he is an American natural born citizen, but he dropped the Canadian one so it wouldn’t cause someone to even bring it up. Being a constitutional expert, he knew he was a natural born American citizen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.