[odawg]

“...it’s fair to say that Ted’s parents’ loyalty was to the United States.”

Why? Ted’s father became a Canadian citizen.

[Mechanicos]

The only time naturalized or other legal created citizenship would apply to presidential qualifications was at the time of adoption of the US Constitution as it says in black and white.

The Clause at issue is this one please note it distinguishes natural born citizen from citizen.

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;...”

The only time a legal-created citizenship mattered for president was “... at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” and this aint 1776 no more.

[SuzyQue]

Very rational conclusion.

[doug6352]

“The Founding Fathers never explicitly defined the term “Natural Born Citizen.”

You are mistaken. It was defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

[BenLurkin]

Everybody survived -- except for Loretta Fuddy

[Bubba_Leroy]

If you are a citizen then you are either 1. a natural born citizen, or 2. a naturalized citizen.

There is no third category.

[Michael.SF.]

I can certainly see that they would have a soft spot for immigrants,

And therefore should stand solidly against illegal immigrants. There are few who abhor illegal immigrants more then those who immigrated here legally.

[Liz]

If we accept anything less than the constitution's original intent, it could allow the offspring of an American who joined ISIS and birthed a child w/ say, a Syrian, to claim eligibility for the office.

==========================================

BACKSTORY Cruz was born in Canada to a Canadian father and a Delaware-born American mother......thus making Cruz a dual Canadian-American citizen. Texans elected him to the US Senate not knowing he was a dual Canadian citizen.

It was not until a 2013 Dallas Morning News article that Cruz acknowledged his Canadian citizenry publicly. In 2014, the senator publicly renounced his Canadian citizenship altogether.

Cruz consistently depicted himself as "latino" Yet his family bgrnd indicates only his father is Spanish; his mother is of two nationalities, Italian and Irish from each of her parents.

Cruz ran in Texas as a latino (which has a wealth of latino votes). Cruz even convinced the Senate biographer that he was the first latino elected to the Senate (besides Rubio).

As the immigration issue grew negative in the world of politics, being known as a latino has lost its luster.

===============================================

WIKI The 1803 edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, noted that the natural born citizen clause is "a means of security against foreign influence" and that "[t]he admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."

=============================================

NOTE At the time, King George, and lordly England, were the colonists' boogeymen. It was feared the wealthy Brits could surreptitiously buy their way into our new country's councils and wreak havoc.

====================================================

OLD THINGS SEEM SUDDENLY NEW AGAIN Cruz's wife is a Goldman Sachs exec.

Mrs Cruz served on the North American Union task force, and supported their report called---'Building a North American Community."

The North/South border effort was sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.

Translated into English, that means forget US sovereignty....just eradicate US borders.

Canada is under the jurisdiction of England.

[Steamburg]

In this matter, it’s very hard to use a biblical reference to kings as at the time of our founding Great Brittan was ruled by the house of Hanover and had been since 1714. Clearly, any definition of common understanding has to do with the cases cited in posting 6. The Cruz eligibility argument is spurious at best and disingenuous at worst. It all seems to be about sucking the ethanol argument out of the Hawk-eye Caucus.

[The Sons of Liberty]

The Founding Fathers never explicitly defined the term "Natural Born Citizen." So we are left to use our common sense

Little did the Founding Fathers suspect that, in the nearly 229 years since The Constitution was drafted, that "common sense" would become such a rare commodity.

I WANT AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT THAT TRULY LOVES THIS COUNTRY!

[Responsibility2nd]

You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman (Deuteronomy 17:15).

 

 

Boy, did the US ever screw that one up!

[bk1000]

So, we get a poorly photoshopped copy of a birth certificate from a mulatto born of an African father and raised in Muslim Indonesia, and to question his status as "natural born" makes you a mouth breathing bigot birther. But Cruz is unqualified.

Got it.

[chrisnj]

Yes, the question is ‘loyalty’. How does one determine ‘loyalty?

My question -
compare obama (NOT settled whether he is nbc/loyal to USA only) to Cruz (NOT settled whether he is nbc/loyal to USA only) -

Did anyone ever vet obama to see if they THINK he would be ‘loyal’ to USA only? Did at least some of those who voted for him THINK he would be ‘loyal’ to USA only? (If they did, they certainly are dead wrong!)

Now you think/judge that Cruz would be loyal to USA only. Who is to say you won’t prove to be wrong? Do we have to try him out to see if he is loyal to USA only?

The founders wanted to ensure undivided loyalty to the USA, hence the nbc requirement - the president/VP MUST be under the sole jurisdiction of USA only (from the time of his/her birth) i.e. born on US soil to 2 USA citizen parentS.
A person born under any other circumstances is subject to more than 1 jurisdiction, e.g. USA and Kenya(obama); USA and Cuba (Cruz); USA and Canada (Cruz); USA and Canada and Cuba (Cruz)

Surely a nbc (such as the clintons) could be NOT so loyal to USA, but we have to set a guideline, establish a principle. We cannot go by our instincts or our often faulty judgement to determine whether a person will be loyal to USA only.

[Mr Rogers]

For my part, Hillary Clinton is ample proof that being born in the USA of two citizen parents has NOTHING to do with loyalty to the USA or any belief in its principles.

On average, naturalized citizens are more loyal to the USA than born citizens. The NBC clause was a stupid idea, but it is there and a naturalized citizen cannot become President without a constitutional amendment. Ted Cruz, however, was born a US citizen. That pretty much ends it for me, because there are only two categories of citizens found in the Constitution - born and naturalized. Everyone is one or the other.

[RummyChick]

You can’t look at it that way. You need to take the name Ted Cruz out of the picture.

Use another one.

How about Hillary Clinton. Put the exact same parameters on her.

Or you could use Queen Noor’s son who is going to Harvard. There are mixed opinions of whether she gave up her American Citizenship. Pretend she didn’t. Do you want an Arab Prince as your POTUS?

[Dana1960]

I am starting to wonder if half the people around here have lost their ever-lovin’ marbles.

Every single one of us, who is over the age of 25 has known since grade school that you had to be born on US soil to American parents to be president. This was part of Am History curriculum from the beginning of time. Every one of us.

Which is exactly why the Obama thing was so controversial: he had an American mom (in the weeds, but not old enough to confer citizenship, but let that go) but his place of birth was UNCERTAIN.

They had to pass a special thing in the Senate, for that loser McCain, because his birthplace was elsewhere, even though his family was active military, stationed abroad.

Obama was questioned because his PLACE of birth was murky.

This is exactly why Cruz’ birthplace matters.

No one is suggesting that Cruz has some affinity or loyalty to Canada, no one is saying that he doesn’t love America. I certainly would never utter either thing. And a constitutional expert such as Cruz knows everything I just said and would be candid about it, provided he didn’t have selfish ambitions.

But I know this: If I were Dewhurst, and the guy responsible for background research still worked for me, he’d be fired by lunch today. Because he missed something BIG.

The notion that Ted Cruz ran for the US Senate in Texas without disclosing that he was, at least, a dual citizen of Canada.....contemporaneously.....is almost shocking.

Fairly incompetent by Dewhurst’s team and pretty damn brazen by Cruzes team.

[publius911]

To take it back as far as it will go requires us to look at the book of Deuteronomy...

You lost me here, buddy.
Inject religion into the discussion is a guaranteed thread killer.

If we can't argue secular matters using secular logic and reasoning, we don't deserve to prevail.

I am an industrial-strength "crusader" Christian, but I refuse to use Mass Murdering Muslim (MMM) argument, illogic and primitive emotional arguments to make my case.

[Cboldt]

-- The Founding Fathers never explicitly defined the term "Natural Born Citizen." --

I submit that they did.

Article IV Section 2 of the constitution tells us who is a citizen of the US.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

To find out who is a natural born citizen of the US, one would look to who was granted citizenship in one or any of the several states, at the time of that person's birth. That would be a person who is born a citizen under the constitution.

What state was Cruz a citizen of, when he was born?

[Political Junkie Too]

My theory is that the natural born clause in Article II is not intended as a definition of a type of citizen, as that would belong in Article I section 8. Instead, it is a only a qualification for the office, along with the age and residency qualification. This is a tighter requirement than simply citizen or naturalized citizen, just like citizen at least 35 years old is a tighter requiremeet than just citizen. So, natural born is an understood requirement for office, not a Constitutional definition of who is a citizen.

We don't argue whether "citizen over age 35" is a category of citizenship the way we argue over "citizen natural born."

Most people understand the awkward grammar of the Second Amendment. What if the late weekend (Sept. 8-12, 1787) change from the Committee of Style and Arrangement rushed the grammar in their rewrite of Article II Section 1? What if Article II Section 1 were instead written:

"No person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not be natural born, have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Would this make a difference?

-PJ