Yes, birthers, Ted Cruz IS a natural-born citizen of the U.S.

Lone Star Conservative ^ | Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 10:30 AM | Josh Painter

[Josh Painter]

This should not even be an issue any longer, but there are still some out there who didn't get the legal memo.

First, some history:

The origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause date back to a letter John Jay (who later authored several of the Federalist Papers and served as our first chief justice) wrote to George Washington, then president of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25, 1787. At the time, as Justice Joseph Story later explained in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, many of the framers worried about “ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.” “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” Jay wrote.

Washington thanked Jay for his hints in a reply dated September 2, 1787. Shortly thereafter, the natural-born citizenship language appeared in the draft Constitution the Committee of Eleven presented to the Convention. There is no record of any debate on the clause.

To make a long story short, the question boils down to a matter of intent:

While it is possible to trace the origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause, it is harder to determine its intended scope—who did the framers mean to exclude from the presidency by this language? The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.” There is no record of discussion of the term natural born citizen, but it is reasonable to conclude that the drafters believed that foreign-born children of American parents who acquired citizenship at birth could and should be deemed natural born citizens.

In conclusion:

What can we expect if Senator Cruz or another similarly situated candidate runs for president in 2016? Undoubtedly, the controversy will continue with passionate advocates on both sides of the issue. A scholarly consensus is emerging, however, that anyone who acquires citizenship at birth is natural born for purposes of Article II. This consensus rests on firm foundations. First, given Jay’s letter and the language of the 1790 naturalization act, it seems evident that the framers were worried about foreign princes, not children born to American citizens living abroad. Second, the 14-year residency requirement Article II also imposes as a presidential prerequisite ensures that, regardless of their place of birth, would-be presidents must spend a significant time living in the United States before they can run for office.

Concurring:

Two former top Justice Department lawyers say there is “no question” Ted Cruz is eligible for the presidency, in a new Harvard Law Review article that seeks to put to rest any doubt about the Texas Republican. “Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution,” write Neal Katyal and Paul Clement in an article published March 11. “There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.”

[...]

The Harvard Law Review article is notable because it is a bipartisan assessment that Cruz meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen.” Katyal was an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration from May 2010 to June 2011. Clement was solicitor general from 2004 to 2008 in the Bush administration and is, perhaps, best known nationally among conservatives for arguing the case against President Obama’s health care law before the Supreme Court in 2012.

Katyal and Clement review the intent and meaning behind “natural born citizen,” going back to the Founding Fathers. The question about citizenship and presidential eligibility has also affected Barry Goldwater, George Romney and John McCain over the years — and all met the constitutional test.

Katyal and Clement conclude in their article:

As Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose. Finally, another bipartisan consensus:

Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.” Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization — again, including Texas’s junior senator.

Case closed. Bye bye, birthers,

- JP

[Yosemitest]

You could NOT be more WRONG, even if you TRIED !
Where did you get your education, in Obama's Public Education System ?

[Plummz]

Thatr’s certainly an interesting theory.

[Nero Germanicus]

What is needed is a court ruling or an action of Congress which states that Obama is ineligible. That has never happened. Congress has ignored the issue and the courts have consistently ruled in Obama’s favor on natural born citizenship and Article II, Section 1 eligibility.
For example:
Rhodes v MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.

[Nero Germanicus]

Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana (A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously concerning Obama’s eligibility to receive Indiana’s Electoral votes): “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [SCOTUS in U.S. v] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009

[Nero Germanicus]

Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010

[Nero Germanicus]

Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012

[Nero Germanicus]

Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012

[Nero Germanicus]

Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012

[Nero Germanicus]

Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al. Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California:
“The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not initiated impeachment proceedings, and, in fact, the House of Representatives, in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Congress. (2009) commemorating, by a vote of 378-0 the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating “The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

[Nero Germanicus]

Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.

[Nero Germanicus]

Voeltz v. Obama (Original Jurisdiction), Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012

Voeltz v. Obama (Reconsideration), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012

[Nero Germanicus]

While I expect many fewer court rulings than the over 200 that dealt with Obama, I expect no difference in courts’ findings for Senator Cruz than their findings for Obama.

[Political Junkie Too]

The one I'm worried about is Bobby Jindal. Jindal is an anchor baby whose mother was already 5 months pregnant when she and his father came here on a student visa.

Is that what the Framers expected when they added natural born to the list of Presidential requirements?

-PJ

[Nero Germanicus]

Good point. I’m betting Governor Jindal will be challenged in the courts too.

[Nero Germanicus]

Because Jindal’s parents came to the U.S. legally and always intended to become U.S. citizens, and Bobby Jindal hasn’t used his citizenship status to bring other relatives to the U.S., he really doesn’t qualify as an anchor baby.
Jindal’s mother had been offered a scholarship in 1970 to complete a graduate degree in nuclear physics at Louisiana State University.
When she informed the university that she couldn’t accept the scholarship because she was pregnant, “LSU wrote back and promised her a month off for childbirth if she changed her mind. LSU was so accommodating, and the opportunity to come to America so thrilling, that Jindal’s parents accepted.
They secured green cards, packed up a few suitcases, said their goodbyes, and took off for this exotic new place called Baton Rouge, Louisiana.”

They arrived Feb 1, 1971, and a bit over four months later, on June 10, 1971, Piyush Jindal was born at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge, a natural-born U.S. citizen, who like every other child born in America, could, constitutionally, grow up to be president.
The issues of citizenship and immigration have become major topics, with President Barack Obama releasing his “long-form” birth certificate on April 27, 2011 to quell questions about where he was born. And there is a growing movement in America, led by, among others, Senator David Vitter, R-La., to change those rules and restrict birthright citizenship.

“My bill limits birthright citizenship to individuals born in the United States with at least one parent who is a legal citizen, a green card holder or an active member of the U.S. armed forces,” said Vitter when he introduced his legislation on the Senate floor.

Were it to become law, Vitter’s bill would not be retroactive, and even if it were, or if it had been the law when Jindal was born, the future governor would have been eligible for birthright citizenship because his parents had green cards, giving them the status of permanent legal residents.

But Jindal, knowing that his own status will certainly be examined in the event he ends up on a presidential ticket, released his own birth certificate, and his parents — through Jindal spokesman Kyle Plotkin — offered fresh details of their immigration to the United States.
The most significant new piece of information is that the Jindals entered the United States on green cards secured not by the governor’s mother, Raj Jindal, based on her LSU scholarship, but by his father, Amar Jindal, based on his training as an engineer.

Before the 1965 immigration reform law, immigration from Eastern Hemisphere counties, like India, was limited. But the 1965 act permitted greater immigration through a variety of categories, including “professionals, scientists and artists of exceptional ability.”

Amar Jindal’s passport is notated with the code P3-1, the visa code in 1971 for “professional or highly skilled.” And Raj Jindal received her green card as his spouse.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/gov_bobby_jindal_releases_his.html

Anchor babies are the offspring of illegal aliens or people on visitor (tourist) visas.

[Godebert]

All of your court cases are lower courts with leftist democrat judges.

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

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

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

[Yosemitest]

Was the LAW AT THAT TIME a "THEROY" ?

Was Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson's marriage to Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, BEFORE the birth of TED CRUZ, Did Rafael Bienvenido Cruz obtain a legal visa, and a green card, BEFORE he married Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson, or is that a "THEROY" ?

Yes, Ted Cruz Is A “Natural Born Citizen”, and IT HAS BEEN PROVEN to be A FACT !

So take your BOGUS "THEORY" Argument and try to "SELL IT" to Neal Kaytal and Paul Clement,
two of the best appellate litigators in the country, who happen to come from opposite sides of the political aisle,
and who also published a piece in the Harvard Law Review that answers this question quite definitively,
and makes it clear that Cruz is indeed a “natural born citizen” as that term is used in Article II of the Constitution.

[Yosemitest]

I agree, as long as the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF remains in the Oval Office, and IN CHARGE of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH,
appointing Federal Judges and Federal Prosecuting Attorneys, which the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" have NOT the guts to IMPEACH and CONVICT !

[Political Junkie Too]

Because Jindal’s parents came to the U.S. legally and always intended to become U.S. citizens, and Bobby Jindal hasn’t used his citizenship status to bring other relatives to the U.S., he really doesn’t qualify as an anchor baby.

I challenge that assumption.

I read that article, too. A student visa is a temporary visa, just like a tourist visa. It can only be renewed as long on the studies continue. It is not a work visa nor a permanent resident visa. You cannot infer an intent to stay from it, and you probably have to swear on your intent to departafter your studies complete.

Jindal is an anchor baby whose parents were here temporarily and stayed because of his citizenship.

-PJ

[Nero Germanicus]

Jindal’s father came to the U.S. with Permanent Resident Alien status. That word “PERMANENT” counters your theory.

From the article: “Amar Jindal’s passport is notated with the code P3-1, the visa code in 1971 for “professional or highly skilled.” And Raj Jindal received her green card as his spouse.”

Even though Jindal’s mother qualified for a student visa, she was issued a green card because her husband had one.

Bobby Jindal looks to me like just an ordinary “Citizen of the United States At Birth” child of legal immigrants.