Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen

Again, moot point. If Barack Hussein Mohammad Obama, Junior can serve two terms as chief magistrate, then Ted Cruz, Chester Arthur, John McCain and any number of other people are therefore qualified to be president. You can’t say “well, this man is a Democrat and partially black, and making history, therefore we won’t say anything, but now along comes a man that we don’t like, so therefore the gate must be closed again.” Nope, the gate is ajar and the hinges are broken off.

I agree with you that that is how it *OUGHT* to work, but I have long noted that they always apply a different set of rules to Democrats than they do to Republicans, and the Republicans must always be made to endure far more challenges than do the Democrats.

I dare say that if Cruz secures the nomination, the Democrats and the Media (but I repeat myself) will launch an all out smear campaign challenging his eligibility. Even if he succeeds in court, there is a good chance they will do so much damage to him in the court of public opinion that he might not be able to recover from it.

For nearly the last decade we have heard that the only requirement for being a "natural citizen" is to be born in the country. There is a chance that most of the public, after hearing this so many times, will actually believe it, and therefore vote on it. I can assure you that the media will do everything of which they can think to make this the end result.

It is clear to anyone with an IQ above 60 that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii; he has said so, his grandmother said so, the Kenyan government has said so and so has his publisher and press agent. He was born in Kenya, which is just as much a foreign country as Canada is. The horses are out of the barn. I don’t want to hear any more bull$#*+ about Ted Cruz not qualifying. That ship sailed in 2008.

If they can let Obama get away with his bullsh*t dual citizenship, then there ought to be no bar to anyone else getting away with it. However I expect court challenges to Cruz if he wins the nomination, and the media will play it up these court challenges as his having "questionable citizenship." They will deliberately cast doubt in the public mind, and that will have a negative impact on his ability to garner votes.

Do not doubt for a minute that they will do this.

Well, good thing he’s one of the top 10 winningest Supreme Court litigators extant, nicht wahr?

Winning in court doesn't win the election. The Damage can be done in the court of public opinion and the Legal court rulings won't save him in the election.

Beyond that, he might actually face a very serious challenge in court. As Nero Germanicus almost had a meltdown when I pointed this out, perhaps you should consider it as well. I noticed that Ray76 has already mentioned it, but I don't think he highlighted the salient point.

“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized...”

– U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark-

I believe "Wong Kim Ark" has been bandied about for the last seven years as the most salient defining court decision on the topic. If Wong Kim Ark says you *MUST* be born inside the Jurisdiction of the United States then that's a pretty tough opinion to ignore, especially after so many people have said "Wong Kim Ark" was the last word on the subject.

And that doesn't even address the problem of arguing away the "Rogers v Bellei" decision.

For the record, Rogers v Bellei is now moot and wouldn’t be used as precedent.
From Wikipedia: “The statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.”

If Senator Cruz decides to run, I am certain there will be lawsuits challenging his eligibility like there were for Obama and McCain. The courts will decide the issue.

Since Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, the statement quoted by Ray76 had no bearing on the holding in that appeal and it is therefore not precedential.

As of 2011, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
“a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
additionally: “Children born overseas to married parents
The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents.

If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen at birth if either of the parents has ever had a residence in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen at birth if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child’s birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen at birth if the U.S. citizen parent has been “physically present” in the U.S. before the child’s birth for a total period of at least five years, and
at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent’s fourteenth birthday.— the last example is Senator Cruz’s situation.

Because Congress changed the requirements for the naturalized at birth citizen, (Aldo Mario Bellei) they changed the requirements for "natural born citizen"? I thought you have previously said congress doesn't have the power to unilaterally redefine that term?

You should make up your mind.

If Senator Cruz decides to run, I am certain there will be lawsuits challenging his eligibility like there were for Obama and McCain. The courts will decide the issue.

They may decide the "legal" issue, but they certainly cannot force voters into going along with whatever they say. If sufficient court challenges cause people to lose faith in his eligibility, he may win the court battle but lose the election.

Since Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, the statement quoted by Ray76 had no bearing on the holding in that appeal and it is therefore not precedential.

You can either argue that the Wong court knows what it's talking about or you can argue that it doesn't. You cannot assert that it is right about this one thing it says, but wrong about this other thing it says.

So now you can go ahead and do your little legaleeze blarney dance while you try to square that circle.

So which is it, is the Wong court right or wrong? They can't be both.

Rogers v Bellei did not define natural born citizen. The holding in that appeal was that Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on Bellei, who did not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Bellei’s problem was that he did not meet the residence in the U.S. requirement of an 1874 law that applied to his birth circumstances.

I agree with you that the issues of electability and eligibility are completely separate.
In many court decisions it is possible to agree or disagree with the court’s ultimate holding and agree or disagree with the dicta that preceeds the holding.
Time will tell on whether Rogers v Bellei impacts Ted Cruz’s status as a natural born citizen. It obviously had no effect on Barack Obama’s eligibility or electability.

We disregarded Wong Kim Ark back around 2010, IIRC.

Wong Kim Ark does not present a problem from my perspective. It only presents a problem from the perspective of those who argue that it is the salient precedent.

You know, like Nero Germanicus. For him, it is a real problem. But I have faith that he will be able to live with the cognitive dissonance such a conundrum presents. He's always managed to do it before.

Lawyer types never seem to have a problem with claiming to simultaneously believe two different and contradictory things.

At any time from 1898 until today, Congress could pass legislation that renders the decision in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark moot or that further clarifies the holding in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark

The U.S. government’s attorneys argued in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark:
“The district court, following as being stare decisis the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing (10 Sawyer, 356), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizen by birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within The United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.”

The federal government attorneys went on to argue: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

And finally the government argued: “To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet be was not born subject to the “political jurisdiction” thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”

The Supreme Court ruled against the government’s position 6 to 2 and for Wong Kim Ark’s position.

How the current Supreme Court might rule on the circumstances of Senator Cruz’s birth in Canada to one U.S. citizen parent and an alien father and what role the holding in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark might play in their decision remains to be seen.

“You know, like Nero Germanicus. For him, it is a real problem. But I have faith that he will be able to live with the cognitive dissonance such a conundrum presents. He’s always managed to do it before.”

I can live very easily with the distinction between what is “obiter dicta” (remarks of a judge which are not necessary to reaching a decision, but are made as comments, illustrations or thoughts) in a Supreme Court decision and what is the Court’s actual “holding” (ruling, opinion, decision).

There is no cognitive dissonance on my part concerning those two categories of writings in an opinion.

Exactly what I meant. Lawyer types are perfectly capable of drawing artificial distinctions between one undeniable fact and another.

Believing that the Wong Kim Ark opinion is both wrong and right at the same time, is no great trick for people who are more grounded in procedure than they are in reality.

The legal system is just one big "Schrodinger's cat", and your "orbiter dicta" is the artificial boundary between your both dead and alive dissonance. It is like quantum superposition for you.

There is no cognitive dissonance on my part concerning those two categories of writings in an opinion.

That's the spirit! Don't ever let anyone shake your confidence in reality, or the lack thereof.

At any time from 1898 until today, Congress could pass legislation that renders the decision in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark moot or that further clarifies the holding in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark

The stuff you write is really starting to make my eyes glaze over. I fear i'm going to be incapable of reading your comments sometime in the not too distant future.

Of course it's not like you actually put any thought into it. Any day now I expect to hear you tell us that we have to call Bradley Manning "Ms. Chelsea Manning", like that Military judge ordered.

The legal profession is not a reality based vocation. Evidence for this conclusion accumulates daily nowadays.

I am not an attorney You confuse the messenger with the message. I have posted what the courts’ rulings have been.
If Congress was taking action on Natural Born Citizenship, I would be posting their actions. If the states were taking action legislatively, I would be commenting on their actions as well. But the debate over natural born citizenship has been overwhelmingly a judicial debate.
Since Senator Cruz is not an announced candidate and since no legal decision has been rendered on his eligibility status vis a vis the Article II, Section 1 requirements, all we are doing here is speculating on what might happen in the future.
Whether the section of the ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark that is currently under discussion here will be applied to him and whether it will be definitive remains to be seen. If it is, my opinion is, so be it.
My primary argument has always been that there is no constitutional distinction between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen since the adoption of the 14th Amendment and under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, current US law states that a Citizen of the United States AT BIRTH includes: “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:”
My SPECULATION is that courts might conceivably rule that Senator Cruz is eligible under Article II, Section 1 due to that section of current law.

I can also see where you might be correct and courts will rule him ineligible.

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.