“...For those who still believe in adhering to the doctrine of ‘original intent.’...”
Well, the N.A. of 1790 was written a mere three years after the constitution by a congress that included 8 of the 11 founding fathers who were also framers of the Constitution. That act provided that “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.â€
That’s their own words. Founding fathers. Framers of the constitution. How much more “original” does the “original intent” need to be?
“Well, the N.A. of 1790 was written a mere three years after the constitution by a congress that included 8 of the 11 founding fathers who were also framers of the Constitution. That act provided that “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.â€Â
That’s their own words. Founding fathers. Framers of the constitution. How much more “original†does the “original intent†need to be?”
It’s crystal clear but so is this! Natural Born Citizenship does not depend on ANY legislative act that has ever occurred!
There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz’s citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute. Here is one particular quote of note:
Quote
“Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.” end quote
I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have meet all of the obligations described above, hence that is why his US citizenship is not in question. But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) that have been drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural born citizenship.
I will use myself as an example. I was born in the United States to two citizen parents. My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution. That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.
Excellent point. Sold.