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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

With the acceptance of Hussein Obama as president the question is no longer even relevant. Anyone on earth that fulfills the other explicit Constitutional requirements of age and residency is now eligible to run for President and to be President of the United States. Probably those could go by the board if the Democrats come up with a 19 year old DNA Communist who is black, transgendered, and Moslem.

"US statutes condition the granting of citizenship to children born abroad, when the citizenship of parents is mixed. Just saying, the law isn't as cut and dry as the article asserts. "

Exactly! These laws everyone keeps citing are NOT THE CONSTITUTION. Obamacare is the law of the land, does anyone here think it's Constitutional?

If Cruz is a NBC using the completely illogical reasoning that just one of his parents was a US citizen. Then by that same definition he is also a NBC of Cuba and Canada.

I live in Texas and did my part to get him elected to the US senate. I fully support Cruz for president. That being said we must quit lying to ourselves as it will be our undoing. I don't care if he is an NBC at this point, we need someone that can lead this country back to limited government before it's too late.

One cannot compare Obama’s birth to Cruz’s birth and someone always brings up Obama when talking about Cruz.

The problem with Obama is, we don’t know if his maybe American citizenship was never registered and don’t know if his American citizenship, if it was registered, was renounced when he was a citizen of wherever he actually was born. He did attend college here, listing himself as a foreign student.

At any rate, his background is so cloudy and secret, it can’t be compared to Cruz.

Jay was a diplomat for the Continental Congress when his children were born in France. Jay wrote Washington about natural born citizens because he was concerned his children would be excluded from eligibility because they happened to be born in a foreign country while their father was in diplomatic status. Jay’s children were natural born citizens of the United States because their father was in diplomatic status.

Foreign born children are foreign citizens until they use the US Code to naturalize as a US citizen. Naturalized citizens are eligible to be President of the United States.

"well, the founders discussed it. they wanted to insure the person that assumed the office wouldn’t have split allegiances, at least by birth. they also wanted to insure the king of england would NEVER be able to be president of the United States. the second part can be used as a simple logic test helping to verify the first. that being, both parents must be citizens and the child must be born on the soil. as a test, look at prince william and kate. if they flew to NYC and she gave birth then flew home... their child could be the future king of england. if he moved to the US when he was 20 and ran for president at 34... he would be eligible IF the rules being applied to 0bama, TCruz and others were used. obviously, this is the EXACT scenario the founders wanted to avoid."

What if an American man traveled to Russia and got a member of Vladimir Putin's family pregnant? oops, Natural Born Citizen! Yea right.

I wouldn't try to inject logic into this thread! I have come to the conclusion that some "conservatives" can be as illogical as the liberals.

We just need to get Cruz elected and quit talking about if he is an NBC or not. We are simply setting ourselves up to ultimately get him disqualified using the delusional logic cited in this article.

natural born and citizen at birth are the same

Are you sure about this? What about anchor babies?

The Naturalization Act of 1790 refers to "children of citizens." Anchor babies are children of non-citizens who were born here.

How do you reconcile the language in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the concept of anchor babies both being natural born citizens at birth, within the context of the language of the Act?

-PJ

“...The problem with 0bama is, we don’t know...”

With 0bama, he only has one legal requirement to meet:
Was his mother a US citizen, and resident for 5 years, two of which were after her 14th birthday?

If so, then 0bama acquired citizenship at birth and there is truly no issue with his citizenship.

If not, then lawyers and federal prosecutors need to get involved. But they won’t. So regardless of the facts, no one in any competent position of authority will do anything about it. It then becomes a non-issue due to lack of prosecutorial interest. Doesn’t make it *right*, but a non-issue nonetheless.

I quit worrying about it long ago when no-one who *could* do anything about it, *would* do anything about it.

Why on God's green earth would you bring this up again? This is a subject that Freepers just need to shut up about. It does no good whatsoever to keep asking this question. It only sows doubts, despite all the assurances to the contrary.

It leaves people thinking that "If he's natural born, why do they keep pushing articles trying to convince us? "

Stop it. Just stop it.

-- Yes, it is cut and dried ... --

Well, your grandson happened to meet the conditions, as the American Embassy confirmed. But not all children born out of the country, of parents with mixed citizenship, meet the statutory conditions for conferring citizenship on the child.

I wasn't making any contention as to whether or not Cruz's parents met the statutory conditions, I was merely criticizing the author's over-broad contention, that ALL children born of one US citizen parent are ALWAYS US citizens.

Obama’s mother’s age at his birth is only relevant IF he was born outside of the United States. There is no age requirement to establish Citizenship at Birth for the mother of a person born in the United States.
The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there.
When the Republican Governor of Hawaii issued the following statement, it took all the wind out of the sails of the Obama born abroad movement.
Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI):
“You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It’s been established. He was born here.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

And additionally in 2009, the House of Representatives passed a resolution (H. Res. 593, 111th Congress) by a vote of 378-0 which states, in part, “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

Thank you for that. It was never quite clear during the Obama birth certificate hunt whether there were two types of citzenship, natural born and naturalized, or if there was a third type of citizenship at birth which wasn't natual born for some reason. Since the exact term "natural born" only applied to the requiremnents for president and vice president I had seen no statute which clearly defined it. That 1790 law comes as close as I have seen and makes it pretty clear that natural born and citizen at birth are the same and there are only two types of citizenship.

Do not celebrate yet. That 1790 statute which the author foolishly included specifically says that if your father is a foreigner, you can't have citizenship at all.

It is the height of idiocy to quote *THAT* particular statute in an effort to support Ted Cruz.

You might find this to be ironic:
The German newspaper “Die Zeit” is highlighting the mysterious early years of Vladimir Putin, thanks to a Chechen man who resurfaced in Western Europe after years of hiding. According to testimonies the man recorded from Vera Putina, the woman who claims to be the president’s biological mother, Putin was born out of wedlock and sent to live with distant relatives he would eventually claim as his real parents as a child. The Chechen, “Rustam Daudov,” says Putin didn’t know Russian, so his new birth certificate made him two years younger so he could repeat a grade. Federal agents allegedly removed all traces of him from his real home village in Georgia, but one photo allegedly remains of young Putin, though there’s no proof that it’s him.Rumors about his true origins have plagued Putin for years. Notably, journalists have failed to find anyone who knew Putin as a young boy in St. Petersburg; most accounts of his childhood start after the age of 8. Officially released photos that imply the child in them is Putin are often uncaptioned; one showing a young child on his mother’s lap may in fact show Putin’s older brother.

“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.”

That statement defines what the framers had in mind when they used the term “natural born citizen”:

Specifically, “children of citizens of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens.” It doesn’t matter if the child was born on the back side of the moon. Now, if both of Cruz’s parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth, then that qualifies him as being a natural born citizen. It is the citizenship of the parents, not the place of birth of the child.

I too feel grateful for this post.

You shouldn't. By bringing up the "naturalization act of 1790" you are damaging Cruz. That act specifically excludes the children of foreign fathers from acquiring citizenship. obviously the guy who wrote this article didn't read the act all the way through. It hurts, it doesn't help.

It's time to focus on the extremely difficult (if not impossible) task of rebuilding this nation. Cruz is a part of that plan. No sense in arguing about "preserving the Constitution" if there's none of it left to preserve.

This is my thinking as well.

That being said we must quit lying to ourselves as it will be our undoing. I don't care if he is an NBC at this point, we need someone that can lead this country back to limited government before it's too late.

I agree. We shouldn't even bring this topic up. Rest assured, the Liberals will do it for us when they see a chance.

Exactly, and bringing it up serves no purpose other than to keep the topic alive and raise doubt in people's minds. A lot of people will look at these discussions and think "If he's natural born, why do they keep bringing it up?"

Stop talking about it!

What the Act actually said was that if your father had never been RESIDENT in the U.S., a child born beyond the sea could not be considered as a natural born citizen.

Here ‘s the exact wording of the relevant passage: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”
http://www.indiana.edu/%7Ekdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

John Jay had two sons, Peter (1776) and William.(1789) Both were born in the United States.

I don't think he was concerned as to whether or not his four girls could become 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.