Posted on 05/14/2015 8:44:18 AM PDT by 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
-PJ
That’s certainly an interesting theory.
There’s a more practical political consideration regarding impeachment: there are 54 Republicans in the Senate, including the RINOs. It takes 67 votes to convict and remove him from office.
Ten Republicans voted Clinton not guilty of perjury and five Republicans voted him not guilty of obstruction of justice. The final votes were 55-45 not guilty of perjury and 50-50 not guilty of obstruction.
Obama is likely be found not guilty without at least 13 Democrat guilty votes and that’s unlikely. The Republicans then would have handed Obama a major political victory if impeachment failed to convict.
Clinton’s job approval ratings skyrocketed after the failed impeachment trial and the Republicans looked like losers. We wouldn’t have Clinton’s wife running for president today if he had been found guilty.
In my humble opinion, the best way to get rid of Obama is via a grand jury investigation and criminal indictments being handed down by a prosecutor that would be so embarrassing that the DNC would ask for him to resign for the sake of the party.
Politicians standing on principal, what a novel idea.
Since the House of Representatives, which has the oower to draft a bill of Impeachment has never held a hearing on Obama’s eligibility, I’m thinking that some new evidence would need to be released in order to get the ball rolling.
Currently the congressional Republicans seem to be busy giving Obama more power to fast track negotiations on Asian trade agreements.
That’s certainly an interestng theory.
I'm sure your link is an accuarate representation of naturalization law.
It is not clear from your link what country's green card Cruz Sr is even talking about. Your theory is that it was a US green card. The idea that a Canadian resident can get a US green card is certainly an interesting theory.
You’re not worth debating, because you can’t deal with FACTS !
The green card was for “a Cuban to the United States” !
That’s certainly an interesting theory.
That’s certainly an interesting theory.
Your comment is definitely a CONFESSION that YOU HAVE NO FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR BOGUS THEORY!
I read the thread. I posted my opinion. You pinged to me what I have already read and you feel the need to direct me back to what I have read again?
I guess I’m getting forgetful in my old age.
This thread is long since dormant, but I remembered it, did about five seconds of research, and noticed that you did not bother to include a following sentence in one of your quotes. You posted:
“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.”
For some reason you stopped there. There is a COLON, not a period after “citizens” and so it should have read “...shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose father have never been resident in the United States.”
Did you deliberately leave out the last clause? It rules out Obama and Cruz.
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.