I generally agree with you Mason-Dixon. My qualification is because an attorney from a good law school would have read the Constitution and pertinent cases. My assumption is that Cruz is avoiding the issue, but that before the last two elections, he would have been précised, and honest, about our law. That would give me more confidence that he still believes that the Constitution is the basis for our Republic. In these times anyone should ask why it is that our political kingmakers are floating one naturalized citizen after another, Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, Haley, when we have so many natural born citizens to chose from, Suzanne Martinez, Michelle Bachmann, Alan West, Sarah Palin, ....
Someone asked what Mark Levin said about Cruz? Levin, in whose Liberty and Tyranny Mark quotes Madison’s letter explaining why there are not definitions in the Constitution, cited the 1790 Naturalization Act, the First Congress, which made children of citizens born beyond the seas, natural born citizens. That is the citation used by Larry Tribe, Obama’s Harvard Con. Law professor and adviser. The 1790 act, signed by Washington, was entirely rescinded, repealed, in the 1795 Naturalization Act with “natural born citizen” changed to “citizen”. The 1795 Act was also signed by Washington, who acceded to John Jay's letter and had Madison change the presidential eligibility requirements from "citizen" to "natural born citizen". These men staked their lives and the lives of most in the new nation upon these laws and definitions, laws replacing the arbitrary legal system from Britain that had governed them for over two hundred years.
Cruz is an impressive man, but his lack of candor about his status "I'll leave those questions to the courts", is a little disturbing to someone who has been inspired by Obama to read and learn about our founders, framers and the law. As Chief Justice Waite very carefully explained, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) “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.”
The Constitution didn’t define “citizens”, probably because there would not have been ratification with some states permitting naturalization of slaves. The only citizen defined in the Constitution, using the common-law and language of the framers, is a natural born citizen. That is why the definition was essential to the decision addressing Virginia Minor’s status before the 14th Amendment, a naturalization amendment. The only application in the Constitution for the definition of natural born citizenship was to eligibility of our President and Commander in Chief (so here, probably for the first time, I disagree with rxsid from whom I have learned so much). Citizens were initially defined by the laws in the Constitutions of each state before 1787.
As to equivalence between native-born citizens of the U.S., the 14tn Amendment does not make native-born resident American Indians into citizens. The 14th Amendment makes slaves into citizens, but not natural born citizens. 8 U.S. Code, all of our immigration law, naturalized the children of aliens born on our soil AT BIRTH. Wong Kim Ark, 168 U.S. 649, (1898), citing and quoting Chief Justice Waite’s Minor decision, decided that Wong Kim, born and raised in San Francisco to domiciled Chinese parents was a 'citizen', but not a natural born citizen - a “native-born citizen of the U.S.” - exactly the definition given by Barack on his own web site for his status.
And for the handwaving claim that Vattel was not important to our founders and framers, cite some authority. From F.X. Ruddy, Grotian Society Papers 1972, Vattel was the most cited legal reference in U.S. jurisprudence between 1789 and 1841. It was our first law book at our first law school created by Jefferson out of William and Mary in 1779. It was the only book on Washington’s desk on his first day in office in New York in 1789. Hamilton cited it, in one of his letters to Washington while serving as Treasury Secretary, as is most trusted source.
As the author of the 14th Amendment, Judge/Congressman John Bingham clarified while explaining his bill to the House, “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”
I too would pick the best candidate standing, but I refuse to pretend that our framers didn’t mean what they said. Their avoidance of definitions was intentional, because, well read as most all were, they knew that language changes. They didn’t want the evolution of language to change the meanings, based upon “Natural Law”, “God’s Law”.
If our host doesn’t allow argument in search of the truth in Free Repbulic’s threads, though I don’t believe that is his intent, then FR no longer represents a free republic. I would vote for the candidate most consistent with the Constitution, and today, if the choices were Cruz and Hillary, Cruz is an easy choice. I would prefer he seek to replace Roberts, who is likely impeachable. Democrats, Obama/McCaskill, and McCaskill/Leahy, sponsored two bills to support McCain’s candidacy, SB 2678 in Feb. 2008, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’, which failed to pass, and Senate Resolution 511, The John McCain Natural Born Citizen Resolution, in April. They all knew McCain wasn't eligible, but knew with even more certainty that Obama wasn't eligible. Cruz is being used to provide cover for Republicans who agreed not to vet Obama in exchange. As Levin suggests, and I agree, let's amend the Constitution, Article II Section 1, and consider Levin’s eleven proposals. Honesty and accuracy remain essential. Adherence to our Constitution should not depend upon expedience. We have more natural born citizens, at least until all illegals become voters, than naturalized citizens. There is a reason every proposed Republican is naturalized, and not natural born, so this is not the time to fight this battle. But choosing candidates whose eligibility we tacitly agree to ignore weakens our republic, making provisions ignorable if they aren't politically expedient.
Well, Cruz knows what the Supreme Court knows and what both know is that the Supreme Court has no power to disqualify presidential candidates. He knows and the Court knows that under our Constitution, it is the electors who select our presidents and thus it is the electors who are empowered and obligated to apply the Constitution's eligibility standards to the candidates. The founders did not provide for any judicial review of the elector's decisions.
The Supreme Court has not been evading its responsibility to rule on Obama's qualifications. It has no power to do so.
So, Cruz knows that his birther critics will try to do an end run around the electoral college and seek to impose their anti-Cruz will by requesting help from federal courts. Cruz is inviting them to try to do so.
People who favor the narrow NBC interpretation that they trace to Vattel should make their pitch to electors and to the voters who select our electors. That's who decides these things. ;-)
You are exactly right on this. I've decided that the Constitution comes first and anyone who refuses to obey it will not get my vote. Levin can kiss my behind. He is a coward for ignoring the truth and a traitor for misrepresenting it.
The 1790 act shows what the Founders thought "natural born" meant (even after taking into advisement the opinion of a random Swiss scholar). Its repeal is irrelevant, given the 1795 repealing act does not even contain the term "natural born".