Posted on 01/12/2016 10:09:44 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.
The Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of President." The concept of "natural born" comes from the common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept's definition. On this subject, the common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," while aliens are "such as are born out of it."
. . .
Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator's parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth.
Neither Cruz or Rubio, nor Jindal are "NATURAL BORN CITIZENS" because none of them had TWO American citizen parents at the time of their births.
OTOH, ALL THREE OF THESE MEN WERE INDEED AMERICAN CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF THEIR BIRTHS!
Has Obama EVER been a NBC? NO; unless his REAL father was someone other than Obama and an American citizen.
But remember if Cruz is said to not qualify it opens up BHO too.
..........................................................
Which just might be the whole point. I’d give up Cruz to get Obama any day of the week. All of Obama’s destruction of our liberties and of the foundations of this country would be null and void! Could be Trump’s way of finally getting Obama. Remember he brought up the issue with Obama a long time ago.
The 14th amendment defines who becomes a citizen of the US at birth, and then derivatively becomes a citizen of the state wherein they are born. The authors of the 14th amendment, Sen. Howard and Rep. Bingham were very careful to explain that this did not neccesarily mean they were natural born citizens, even if they were 14th amendment citizens. Sen Trumball, who was head of the Judiciary commitee also said the same thing.
A reading of the plain text of the 14th amendment does not reveal any modification to the NBC requirement in Article II.
Point taken. It would have been more accurate to say that the Constitution identifies two, and only two, classes of citizen: naturalized and natural-born.
No where in the constitution does it say all people are either naturalized or natural born.
Those are the only two forms of citizenship specifically mentioned in the Constitution. So by default if you are not one then you are the other.
So it's important to understand what the founders thought those terms meant.
If the founders has wanted their definition to be the definitive one then I would expect they would have incorporated it into the Constitution itself. But they did not. Nor did they define it in their writings or during the debates. So if you're trying to read their minds then one definition is as good as another.
So if your parents travel into Canada for the weekend and you’re unfortunately born there, you’re ineligible to be President.
Well actually it was the author of the piece that started this thread that said that. And it boggles the mind how people can torture language to come up with something that fits their agenda. What exactly does "naturalized at birth" mean?
You Sir, are correct! </Ed McMahon>
I’m sure this has been brought up, but if Cruz is eligible, any foreigner who has a US citizen parent is too. I’m also sure the hard Cruz fans will say this isn’t the case, but there’s no way we do not end up at that clearly dangerous place.
Why did he wait until 2014 to rescind his Canadian Citizenship? Why didn’t he tell the Texas voters the truth? Why has he admitted he wasn’t eligible and then later insisted “Its settled law” which it clearly is not? Why do so many of his supporters sound like Democrats? Why is his wife a believer in NO BORDERS for the USA which destroys our Sovereignty? Why has he avoided the WALL issue unbtil FORCED to modify his position to the right. Why does he believe more aliens should be admitted to take Americans jobs? Why does he believe in surrendering the powers of the Congress to Obama, with no recourse? Why is he for FREE TRADE in multiple country treaties which destroys the SOVEREIGNTY of the United States? Why oh why does he sound like a little boy lost?
You were right.
“Otherwise we do propagate the concept of second class status to American women, this is not so feminist clap-trap argument, but goes to the heart of individual sovereignty. Is it equal or are men more sovereign than women?”
This may offend your post modern feminist sensibilities, but the patriarchs who wrote the constitution believed that the citizenship condition of the father was the citizenship of the children. It was not until the passage of the Cable Act in 1922 that a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country could transmit US citizenship onto her child. So article II was passed with that understanding still in effect.
Last time I checked, 1922 was LONG after Art II section I , clause 5 was ratified. It has NOT been modified by an Article V amendment. (yet) The original intent of that Articl still applies.
Can you say it again, with bigger font next time? I don’t think it quite rung true, what with the tiny font you used and all.
I'm not sure the state citizenship is derivative of the US citizenship. I think they exist side by side. But no matter, they both exist, on that we agree.
-- A reading of the plain text of the 14th amendment does not reveal any modification to the NBC requirement in Article II. --
I agree with that too. One can get there by breaking down who is a citizen by operation of the 14th amendment, and comparing it with who is a citizen by operation of Article IV.
Cruz isn't a citizen by Article IV, and he isn't a citizen by operation of "born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction," so by elimination, he has to be a citizen by dint of Congress's power to naturalize by statute.
The pieces fit - Cruz's citizenship is defined in a statute, Congress has the power to make rules of naturalization (even rules of naturalization that don't impose going though a naturalization process), so there is no constitutional impediment to Cruz's citizenship.
I'd add that if the statute wasn't in place, if the only place we could look to for a definition of all kinds of US citizenship is the constitution, then Cruz is not a citizen of the US. He can become a citizen by rule of naturalization, any rule that Congress creates (that fits the circumstances of Cruz's birth) will do the trick.
I agree, Cruz is a CITIZEN. He is NOT a Natural born citizen. Big difference!
A tree is a plant, but not all plants are trees!
And post 9 says Cruz was naturalized at birth. So according to your probably false dichotomey, if Cruz was naturalized, then he’s not natural born.
Exactly. It’s a suspect claim, constructed entirely to disqualify someone, if possible, but at least to get Republicans arguing with each other and forgetting about the Clinton scandals.
I would much rather see Donald Trump and Ted Cruz speak out for Christianity and go after the Democrats. And whoever Republican voters decides will be the better leader at this time, so be it. That wouldn’t mean the other has no place in governing.
That's a good question, and I don't know the answer. If the law makes me a citizen of the state my parents are a resident of, then I am the citizen of a state, and a citizen of the US.
Residence and sojourn can complicate the analysis. I would not definitively say that those circumstances preclude state and US citizenship being deemed to occur at birth. Canada's laws may have play too, especially if the citizenship of a child born there depends on the parents being residents there. Law of nations frowns on creating stateless babies.
FR mail
All of those arguing that Cruz is not a natural born citizen are wrong.
Many, such as Alan Grayson, are knowingly lying to try to undermine the best candidate in the race.
Ted Cruz clearly meets all the Constitutional requirements and existing statues defining natural born citizenship.
Congress, in conjunction with the President and the Courts have consistently defined Natural Born citizenship and it includes anyone born to a United States Citizen of majority age who meets the criteria defined by Congress in the laws cited above.
All the semantic parsing of Natural Born verses Naturalized at birth of a person born to a citizen of the United States, even beyond its borders, in no way meets the intent of the Founders that whomever is elected President of the United States be a loyal citizen, born into the tradition of Freedom of this great nation.
Ted Cruz is clearly qualified. Now try to defeat the merits of his arguments on the field of ideas.
That’s a pretty scattershot set of comments.
What Canada does or did is not relevant. What Cruz did is relevant. Failing to unenact what Canada did that doesn’t have any obligatory effect on him is probably not relevant. Some of the other things you cited here may be very relevant to different arguments.
If Canada decides to grant me or you citizenship of their own accord next Thursday, I could care less. I don’t believe that should legally strip you of eligibility to be President.
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.