Replies

You didn't strike me as the sort of man who would be deceptive. I had believed you to be honest and forthright, yet here you are once again, using the presidents who were specifically exempted from the "natural born citizen" requirement to push your claim that two citizen parents weren't necessary.

The grandfather clause exempted persons from the natural born citizen requirement.

It did NOT exempt them from the imaginary two citizen parent requirement which is NOT mentioned in either the grandfather clause or the requirements clause. Neither is is mentioned in the Constitutional Convention nor in any ratifying convention. As noted by the Congressional Research Service report of January 11, 1916, this rejected theory "has not garnered serious legal consideration after Wong Kim Ark in 1898."

It feels like you are trying to deceive people by using these men to which the "natural born citizen" requirement didn't apply.

No, you are trying to deceive people with an imaginary two citizen parent requirement that does not exist.

The first presidents did not have two citizen parents and it did not matter because nobody ever in the history of the nation was ever required to have two citizen parents, or even one citizen parent.

Elliott v. Cruz

Full Opinion of the Court quoted to you here:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4209895/posts?page=178#178

[*1]
No. 77 M.D. 2016
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Elliott v. Cruz, 77 M.d. BEFORE: HONORABLE SENIOR JUDGE DAN PELLEGRINI.
OPINION NOT REPORTED
OPINION BY Senior Judge DAN PELLEGRINI.
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI
FILED: March 10, 2016
Before this Court is a petition to set aside the nomination petition of Ted Cruz (Candidate), pursuant to which he seeks to appear on the April 26, 2016 primary election ballot for the Office of the President of the United States of America, filed by Carmon Elliott (Objector), a registered Republican who resides and votes in Pennsylvania, asserting that the Candidate is ineligible to hold that office under the United States Constitution.
The parties have stipulated that the Candidate was born on December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada; that his mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born on November 23, 1934, in the State of Delaware; that his mother is and has always has been a United States citizen, since the moment of her birth; that at the time of
[*2]
the Candidate's birth, his mother had been physically present in the United States for more than ten years of her life, including at least five years after she reached the age of fourteen; and that the Candidate was a citizen from the moment of his birth.
Because the Candidate was born in Canada, Petitioner contends that Candidate's name should be stricken from the Pennsylvania 2016 primary ballot because he is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1,¹ clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
[...]
While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. [See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, WALL ST. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM).] 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. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
* * * *
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. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But 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.

Id. at 161–64.

- - - - - - - - -

Congressional Research Service
Informing the legislative debate since 1914

Qualifications for President and the "Natural Born" citizenship Eligibility Requirement

Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney

January 11, 2016

[excerpt]

Citizenship of Parents Concerning specifically the reading into the Constitution of a two-citizen-parent requirement for “natural born” citizenship status, it should be noted that there is, significantly, no historical nor controlling legal holding in American jurisprudence to support the argument that parental citizenship governs and controls the eligibility of a native born United States citizen to be President. As indicated in the discussion of the history of the constitutional provision, there is also no justification for this unique theory, which would exclude an entire class of native born U.S. citizens from eligibility for the Presidency, in any of the statements or writings of the framers of the Constitution, or in the entire record of the ratification debates of the United States Constitution.²⁰⁰
____________________
200 As an historical matter it may be noted that Chester A. Arthur, 21st President of the United States, was apparently born in the United States (despite rumors being spread by opponents that he was born in Canada) in 1829 to a U.S. citizen-mother and a father who was not a U.S. citizen, but rather a citizen of Ireland and a British subject, although there have been assertions by some that this fact was not widely known at the time. See Thomas Reeves, GENTLEMAN BOSS: THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR, 202-203 (1975)). There was also a question raised concerning Charles Evans Hughes, Republican candidate for President who narrowly lost to Woodrow Wilson in 1916, and who was born in the United States to parents who were British subjects. Note Medina, The Presidential Qualifications Clause, supra at 267, n. 72, citing to Long, Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution? 49 CHIC. LEGAL NEWS 146 (1916). Although a question was raised by this individual at the time of Hughes’ candidacy, it did not appear to be an issue of any significance for Hughes or other presidential or vice-presidential candidates who were born in the U.S. of recent immigrants, as the “two-citizen-parent” argument with respect to native born U.S. citizens has not garnered serious legal consideration after Wong Kim Ark in 1898. The question did not appear to merit even a mention in the definitive, two-volume biography of Hughes. Merlo J. Pusey, CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, 316-366 (New York 1963).