Posted on 03/11/2013 9:54:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In the past few days, there has been renewed buzz on the Internet about the presidential eligibility of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Cruz has only been in the Senate for about 60 days and does not appear to be behind any of the talk. But he has certainly been in the news in recent days, and in response to a request for comment, his spokesman, Sean Rushton, sent me this note:
Sen. Cruz is a U.S. citizen by birth, having been born in Calgary to an American-born mother. He is focused entirely on his new role in the Senate, and on working every day to represent Texas and defend conservative principles in the Senate.
Any talk about Cruz follows years of discussion about birthplace and presidential eligibility involving President Obama, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Marco Rubio. The bottom line in the case of Cruz, who was born in Canada in 1970, is that his father was an immigrant from Cuba and not a U.S. citizen at the time of young Cruzs birth, but his mother was born and raised in the United States. The law in effect then, and now, made Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen at birth. Although the drafters of the Constitution did not define what they meant when they required an American president to be a natural born citizen, it is generally thought that citizen by birth is the best modern-day equivalent. On that basis, Cruz appears entirely eligible if he ever chooses to pursue the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Madison said it was the “most certain,” not the more important. It’s probably because the allegiance of the parents may be more difficult to determine than the place of birth. Madison still recognized birthrights through parents.
No, Winston Churchill was not a U.S. citizen at birth.
His mother, upon marrying a British subject, became a British subject herself.
if he does not, then of course, he cannot ran for president.
This might be PRACTICALLY true, but it isn't legally true.
Three of our first four Presidents were dual citizens of the United States and France, while they were serving as US President.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.
Here is a list of known relevant quotes from early America, and early American authorities. It includes the Madison quote, and also includes quite a few other people who were very close to our most important Founders and Framers.
I understand this is a long post. But for those who want to know the evidence from early America as to what "natural born citizen" meant, THIS IS IT.
Some quotes are from translations of our Constitution into other languages, particularly French. We were pretty close to the French. As noted earlier, 3 of our first 4 Presidents (1, 3 and 4) had dual citizenship with France WHILE THEY WERE SERVING AS PRESIDENT. This fact, along with the fact that the Constitution does not require Presidents to live more than 14 years of their lives on US soil, completely destroys the meme that the Framers pulled out all the stops to ensure "no possible foreign influence."
The first thing that anybody translating the phrase would do, if they had the slightest doubt what it meant, would be to ask for clarification. So the foreign-language translations are probably a pretty good source for what people understood the phrase to mean. But they are far from the only source.
While I may have omitted some known quotes that didn't really say much of anything very clearly, I've tried to include pretty much all relevant quotes. I have not included quotes from David Ramsay, a favorite of birthers, because Ramsay's treatise on citizenship was the centerpiece of a self-interested sore-loser campaign, Ramsay had no legal training at all and therefore was not a legal authority, and (more importantly) he was voted down 36 to 1. (By the way, that votedown was the source of the James Madison quote.)
There are FAR, FAR more similar historical quotes, but I have cut it off before the year 1850 in order to keep in EARLY America. The last Founder, James Madison, died in 1836.
French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):
Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time
Equates natural born citizen with born citizen. And given the extremely close relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.
James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli and jus sanguinis here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
French translation by a friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):
No one except a natural, born a citizen (or possibly, No one except a natural-born citizen)
Again, by another person who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. No mention whatsoever of parentage.
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795):
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.
Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by Presidents and Supreme Court Justices.
French translation, (translated, 1799):
No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States
Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):
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 A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.
Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):
...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term citizenship.
In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. Except, of course, the claims of birthers.
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):
The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.
Once again.
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):
Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.
And again.
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
The 5th section of the 2d article provides, that no person except a natural born citizen, shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.
Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."
From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):
The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years
From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.
French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe, 1826:
No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States
This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been MADE a natural born citizen of Maryland. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a close friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.)
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the Kings obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:
As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States . Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.
Once again, NATIVE.
French books on the Constitution:
The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States " (1826)
Born citizen, born a citizen.
No one, unless he is a native citizen (1829)
Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.
By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.
Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.
Justice Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. The man was LEGEND. And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.
American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:
From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.
Again: The rule was by the common law.
Another French translation, 1837:
No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States
Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a subject of the king is now a citizen of the State.
Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.
From Spanish books on the Constitution:
No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution (1837)
Born a citizen.
The President must be a citizen born in the United States " (1848)
Born in the United States. No mention of parents.
Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):
That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral
The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.
Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):
...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.
America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):
The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.
Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)
It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.
A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."
Where are the opposing quotes from early America that say that citizen parents were required? Aside from David Ramsay, who was voted down 36 to 1 in a vote led by the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, THERE ARE NONE.
The claim that being a natural born citizen ever required citizen parents for those born on US soil is an absolute historical and Constitutional FALSEHOOD. It is time that those who care about that Constitution stop indulging those who are prepared to twist it.
And yes. Almost certainly, Ted Cruz is eligible to be President of the United States.
Here is a graphic that sums up an accurate understanding of "natural born citizen:"
Get a life.
Thank you for your post. That was very informative.
I note for instance this part of the post you shared :
_____________________________________________
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
The 5th section of the 2d article provides, that no person except a natural born citizen, shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.
Kentucky equated “natural born citizen” with “CITIZEN BY BIRTH.”
___________________________________________
If the above is so, and is compatible with the framer’s intent, then I direct readers to this section of Wikipedia on the topic of citizenship by birth:
Statute, by parentage
Under certain circumstances, children may acquire U.S. citizenship from their parents. The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):
* If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever legally resided 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 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 if
A) 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
B) at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent’s fourteenth birthday
Taking all of the above ( including your posts ( into account, it seems that Bobby Jiindal, Marco Rubio, and yes, Ted Cruz are all natural born US Citizens.
According to this article all that is required to be a Natural Born Citizen is to have a citizen (USA) mother. It does not matter where you are born or how long to stay in the country your were born in. Since there is no doubt Obamas’ mother was a US citizen, according to this author Obama is a Natural Born Citizen too, even if he was not born on US soil.
Yes, that is certainly the reasonable conclusion.
And it's the conclusion that people who are actually in the legal arena seem to reach, time and time again.
Where did you study Constitutional Law and when did you get your degree?
So, you’re saying your daughter is Ted Cruz.
Madison said birthplace was more than place is the “most certain criterion”; he also said “it is what applies in the United
States” when considering citizenship.
Not that natural born citizenship can’t be acquired in other ways, of course. But “born in the USA” is unquestioned.
Nobody says that place of birth is not important. Madison is not saying place of birth is the ONLY criterion and, in context, the very next sentence from which that is quoted he talks about birthright through the ancestors. When the Supreme Court says the nomenclature of the framers was "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens," the court is agreeing with Madison on place of birth AND birthright through the family.
Yawn zzzzzzzzz give it up, you’re clueless.
Maybe not, but at least I know the difference between presidential eligibility and your daughter’s citizenship status.
We have a name up here for the rude people from your state, and I don’t mean “flatlanders”.
Good grief pal, get over yourself - take a pill or something. Drop the quarter for God sake.
Heh heh heh...
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.