Ted Cruz and that ‘natural born citizen’ requirement: What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?

Washington Post ^ | January 15 at 8:47 AM | Fred Barbash

[RC one]

The Founding Fathers’ insistence that the presidency be limited to “natural born citizens” was based on their openly expressed fear that “foreigners were disloyal,” as law professor Malinda L. Seymore has written.

As Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution declared: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President ….” (Italics added) A loophole for themselves, as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote 46 years later, was created “out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities.”

[Fantasywriter]

Good points! McConnell is al most as vindictive Obama (which is saying something). He’d far rather have Hillary than Cruz. (I don’t know his take on Sanders.) McConnell would and could torpedo Cruz in less time than it takes to say, ‘uniparty.’

Don’t forget only 47% believe Cruz is eligible. Another 26% don’t know. That is problematic any way you slice it.

[RC one]

Cruz's family wasn't on vacation in Canada. His father was fully under the jurisdiction of Canada as was Ted.

The founders were pretty clear on what a NBC was and wasn't and why they felt that way. here are a few examples for you:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague.

St. George Tucker, (twice wounded officer in the revolution and nominated by President James Madison to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Virginia)

A loophole for themselves was created out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land

Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice of the United States from 1811 to 1845, speaking of the grandfather clause in Article II, section I, clause 5.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

‘Don’t forget only 47% believe Cruz is eligible. Another 26% don’t know.’

That’s republican opinion during the primary.

Just the way Majority Traitor McCon-man wants it.

We must never forget that he declared war on the Tea Party. He would love nothing better than to see us all squabble over murky legalese and original intent and Vattel and name-calling, hair-pulling etc.

Then Phase 2 — bipartizan opposition to Cruz AFTER the primary.

— Slytherin wins.

SOLUTION — Cruz needs to clear this up.

For example: he could could challenge Professor Tribe to a debate and say, “Obama’s eligible, right? Because his mother was a citizen. Why am I different than him?”

That corners Tribe. After that, the dust clears.

[Fantasywriter]

I’ll say this for your suggestion. A public debate with Tribe would be high profile. Even those who didn’t watch would hear about it. The challenge would project confidence and fearlessness on Cruz’ part. If he then mopped the floor with a liberal icon, he would surge. Nothing legally would have been resolved and the Dems would still litigate, but in the meantime, Cruz would SURGE.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***foreigners were disloyal***

I believe they wanted people who were culturally AMERICAN.
Ted Cruz is culturally AMECRICAN!

Obama is culturally Indonesian moslem.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

And then the monkey on Trump’s back. Trump could mention that Obama was announced eligible. And Trump should at some point call out McCon-man.

Not that Trump ever fights fair, but it would be presidential of him when he feels confident enough.

[Fantasywriter]

After that bizarrely inaccurate swipe Cruz took at Trump’s mother, it’s unlikely Cruz can hope for much help from that quarter. Jmo.

[Gee Wally]

Have you read the Annals of Congress with respect to those 2 acts? I suspect not. There is no discussion as to why the 3rd Congress removed the "natural born" language from the 1795 Act.

Mr. Madison, from the select committee, reported a new bill of Naturalization, containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superseded.

So it would seem that the committee felt the "natural born" language in the 1790 Act was not necessary. Of course that is my supposition since the record is devoid of any discussion about the "natural born" language. There are page after page of discussion, but none of it mentions the "natural born" language.

It would seem that Madison was the one who initiated the 1795 Act:

Mr. Madison gave notice that to-morrow, he should move for leave to bring in a bill, to amend an act for establishing a uniform system of naturalization in the United States. He did not wish to discourage foreigners who desired to incorporate themselves with the body political of America. At the same time, he thought the present law did not fully answer the purpose for which it was designed.

http://founders.archives.gov/?q=naturalization%20act&s=1611311121&r=1, citing Philadelphia Gazette, 9 Dec. 1794 (reprinted in Aurora General Advertiser, 16 Dec. 1794, Dunlap and Claypoole’s Am. Daily Advertiser, 17 Dec. 1794, and Independent Gazetteer, 17 Dec. 1794).

If Madison's intent was to correct a mistaken inclusion of "natural born" in the 1790 Act, he certainly didn't reveal it to Jefferson in his letter of January 11, 1795:

The last subject before the H. of Reps. was a Bill revising the Naturalization law, which from its defects and the progress of things in Europe was exposing us to very serious inconveniences. The Bill requires 1. A probationary residence of 5 instead of 2 years, with a formal declaration on oath of the intention 3 years at least prior to the admission. 2. an oath of abjuration, as well as of allegiance. 3. proof of good character, attachment to the principles of our Government, and of being well disposed to the good order and happiness of the U.S. 4. Where the candidate has borne any title or been of any order of Nobility, he is to renounce both on record. This last raised some dust.

http://founders.archives.gov/?q=new%20bill%20of%20naturalization&s=1211311121&r=23

No mention of removing the "natural born" language. It wasn't significant enough for Madison to include it in his rationale for introducing the bill or in his list of the bill's provisions. The historical record seems to be silent and your conclusions are mere supposition.

[RC one]

I believe you’re wrong. They wrote article II, sec I, clause 5 to ensure that no foreign influence would be able to infiltrate the govt. A child born of a foreign father in a foreign country is exactly what they wanted to keep out of the whitehouse. Your helmet is restricting your vision.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***A child born of a foreign father in a foreign country ****

Obama is still culturally Indonesian moslem being raised there in his formative years. Obviously having an American mother did not contribute to his Americanism.

Which reminds me, a certain Al-Quida member, now deceased, born in Los Cruces NM could have ran for President as he was considered an American Citizen even though he was not raised as an American Citizen, only born here to an Arabic father and mother.

[RC one]

Obviously having an American mother did not contribute to his Americanism.

He is the most unAmerican President we have ever suffered. The point of article II, section I, clause 5 was also to guard against a culturally conflicted president which is itself a manifestation of an incomplete allegiance to America. We see the conflict they feared on display in Obama constantly.

he's like the Robot in the movie Terminator: Salvation that was convinced he was human even though he was full of gears, wires, and circuits. He looks down and sees those gears, wires and circuits, and he doesn't know what the hell he is. He is deeply conflicted.

Cruz may not be conflicted but the fact that he is running and is openly a non-natural born citizen opens up Pandora's box. It establishes a precedent whereby the foreign born children of foreign fathers may gain control over a third of our government and that is what makes him so dangerous.

Who can say what will come after him.

[CpnHook]

SOLUTION -- Cruz needs to clear this up.

For example: he could could challenge Professor Tribe to a debate and say, "Obama's eligible, right? Because his mother was a citizen. Why am I different than him?"

That corners Tribe. After that, the dust clears.

Tribe isn't the one likely to be cornered. The difference with Obama is that he was born in the U.S., and that's the key distinction as regards Cruz. Our Supreme Court has articulated that persons born in the U.S. are natural born citizens needing no naturalization. Whereas any person born outside the U.S. is made a citizen only by way of naturalization:

"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 696, 702, 703 (1898).

And, further, Tribe could hold up the case of Mario Bellei, who, like Cruz was born abroad to a citizen mother and alien father. When Bellei did not subsequently meet the residency requirements under the stature giving him citizenship at birth, the U.S. revoked his citizenship. In upholding that decision, the SCOTUS found that Bellei's citizenship did not meet the "Constitutional definition" of citizen, and thus was subject to revocation without affirmative relonquishment by Bellei.

So Tribe could ask the question "if Mario Bellei was ruled to have a mere statutory citizenship that didn't meet the Constitutional definition of citizenship, how can you claim you meet the Article I standard for citizenship?"

I don't see how Cruz answers that one other than to toss up babbling avoidance.

[Bob434]

[[The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×

3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888).
and enactments of the First Congress.4×

4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).
Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.]]

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

The above is what gave congress the ‘right’ to define natural born citizenship after the fact

[[No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” ]]

This required TWO parents I believe In the early adoption- however, later, it was whittled down to ONE parent- with requirements

The article goes on to state the evolving definition and the fact that courts and the supreme court have upheld the issue thus far-

You posted the definition: [[One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law.]]

Yes- and that refers- according to current NBC advocates- that this simply means the child doesn’t have to be naturalized under the law in order to be a NBC

[[Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))]]

That was later refined as mentioned above and the new definition has been upheld by SC and congress’ decision on the issue

As mentioned- we can say yea or nay all day long but it all boils down to what is in effect now, and what has been decided by the courts and the congress- IF there are any questions that linger, such as ‘original intent’ then it needs to be taken to court or decided by congress if it is congress’ duty to do so

[[Ted Cruz’s father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. Ted Cruz was not born within the jurisdiction of the United States. Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen]]

By law he meets current definitions and requirements for the presidency- as mentioned, it will need to be changed via the courts or congress IF someone wants to prevent him from running-

[CpnHook]

Make the above “Article II,” “relinquishment,” and 169 U.S. 649 for WKA.

[MosesKnows]

What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?

They were afraid of a person with constitutional presidential powers possibly having a divided allegiance.

[Uncle Sham]

Supposition or not, the language defining someone born out of the jurisdiction of the United States was changed to citizen. The language containing natural born citizen no longer applied to someone born out of the jurisdiction of the United States as of 1795. Thus someone born under the same conditions such as Cruz would be classified as a citizen. Why do you think they changed the language? Also, doesn't the fact that they changed it mean something?

[Cold Heat]

I give up.....seriously

Not the first time I have turned my back on FR within the space of a year or so. The last was the Ebola mess.

This place has gone crackers. Everybody’s hair is on fire over nothing.

Have a great day.

[Cold Heat]

Your wrong....bye

[Cold Heat]

My position would be the same if I was a Bush fanboy.

[Cold Heat]

Originally it was only the father.

Equal protection made it one or the other or both.

It was vattel that confused this by using the term “parents” then contradicting himself in the same paragraph.

We don’t need vattel...the answer is in common sense.

Have a nice day