National Review Online: The Cruz Birthers

42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.

Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”

Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization

Actually, I am right. The father of the 14th Amendment, Representative John Bingham stated this on the House floor:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

“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))

Senator Ted Cruz and Barack Obama’s fathers owed allegiance to foreign sovereignties, namely Cuba and Great Britain. They are not Constitutional natural born Citizens eligible for Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House. He knew what he was talking about.

Ah, the Moran is it?

Call me when it (a) gets out of committee, (b) passes, (c) is signed into law by Reggie's boyfriend. Thanks for the heads-up, though! It is not an altogether bad idea in that it would force the courts into some consideration of my pet issue.

However, yes I am wrong. But why is it that the rest of us non-Kansans never hear much of this Moran fellow? He did win a rather handy victory in the Tea Party shenanigans of 2010.

Next time you're writing to him, ask him to put a rocket up the SCOTUS gowns to get some action on all of this.

What can I tell you? In rulings and concurrences both Justices Scalia and Thomas have cited previous Supreme Court rulings stating that there are only two classes of citizenship. (See Miller v Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 1998) Without Scalia and Thomas there aren’t four votes under The Rule of Four to grant Certiorari to an Obama eligibility challenge and there aren’t five votes to prevail on a holding.

I point out that the opinion of judges does not equal "proven true" and you follow up with more opinions of judges? I guess i'm not making the point clear enough.

In Physics, or in Science generally, there is a concept called "first principles." In order for something to be accepted as true, it must establish that it is based on "first principles." What this means in light of this discussion is that you have to have a reference from the SOURCE of the law. Not subsequent judicial assumptions. Those are just opinions, usually based on other previous opinions.

Now you seem like one of the more intelligent opponents on this issue, so I think you can understand what I am getting at. This is basically an academic discussion at this point, but even so, referring to opinions of previous opinions doesn't count for anything. As I mentioned, at least Jeff Winston attempts to link it back to valid sources, though the best he can do is Rawle.

Might the Supreme Court establish a new precedent? They might. Have they established a new precedent in the twenty Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them in conference thus far? Nope.

The entire judiciary suffers from "precedent madness." They seldom entertain any idea which deviates from the long established norm, even if the norm is based on faulty precedent. Most judges consider this a trivial argument, so they are not really interested in even looking at it let alone giving it a fair hearing.

That a bunch of modern judges are fudging it up doesn't prove anything to me. I have come to expect incompetence from the Judiciary.

Your quote citations do NOT back up your opinion.

Nobody takes issue with the idea that a person born on US soil of two US Citizen parents is a Natural Born Citizen.

However, Bingham NEVER states that those born of Citizen parents on FOREIGN soil are NOT Natural Born Citizens, does he?

And why would he bring up that issue? He is dealing with slavery and the citizenship of former slaves, in the United States. Slaves born in other countries were hardly an issue to Bingham, at that time, since the slave trade had ended long before the Civil War, and the 14th took care of that issue in other ways.

Logic, man, logic, and ENGLISH language comprehension.

I take it that you and I just see and apply written words, especially the Constitution’s, in a different frame of reference. My framework encompasses the the idea that if there is something astray to the Constitution there is indeed a requirement for such actions to have resolution and correction.

I think everyone agrees that any system requires that there be some person or group of persons with the power to make a final decision with regard to a candidate's qualifications. The Constitution empowers the voters and their electors to select our presidents. If you want to expand the power of the Supreme Court to permit it to "correct" errors it feels have been made by voters/electors, who will you want to empower to "correct" the errors that may be made by the Supreme Court when it performs this new job of qualifying candidates? Doesn't the power to make a final decision have to rest somewhere? The Constitution empowers voters and their electors to select presidents; it doesn't create any role for the Supreme Court to disqualify candidates. Voters/electors are empowered to make a final decision as to quaifications.

It is no secret that courts have in the past made decisions as to qualifications/eligibility disputes.

When you actually look, I think you'll find that neither the Supreme Court nor any lower court has ever attempted to rule that a presidential candidate is unqualified to run for president because he/she fails to meet constitutional qualifications. The Supreme Court has never even hinted that it has the power to overturn a decision by voters/electors that a candidate is qualified.

I can agree that the courts are under the Constitution and are limited when they the courts, attempt to change the Constitution. When errors become fraud the concept of voter infallibility is a weak excuse for accepting consequences.

Neither voters/electors nor judges are infallible. However, I have more confidence in the consensus of 130 million voters than in the consensus of 9 unelected judges. A final decision has to be made by someone and the Constitution assigns that job to the voters and to their electors.

Both of these claims are just silly. "Anchor babies" after the Revolutionary War? Not in any modern sense.

Nonsense. When I was trying to get an accurate number, one website suggested there were 100,000 British Loyalist children born in the United States after 1776.

As their parents adhered to England, and as they were expected to follow their Father's loyalty, the United States was left to deal with the consequences of these many thousand American born British subjects. You just refuse to see them for what they are. Revolution era "anchor babies." The only difference is that they didn't, in most cases, try to claim American citizenship. That sort of thing just wasn't done in those days.

So are you proposing that we repeal the 14th Amendment??

I am suggesting that it is badly written and much abused. I would not be in favor of repealing it unless a substitute amendment or set of amendments (it really needs to be divided into more coherent and separate aspects) could be put forth to accomplish it's legitimate objectives.

Yeah, let's repeal the Amendment whose purpose was to make sure everyone understood "them n*****s were citizens, too."

Conversing with you just gets more and more surreal.

Conversing with you is getting to be about the sort of gutter experience that I suspected it would be. That the 14th amendment is used to create millions of abortions per year is not the first thing that comes to your mind when someone criticizes the 14th amendment. No, from YOUR perspective, Criticism of the 14th can only come from someone who is a racist bigot.

That tells me a whole lot about you. I am no longer believing you are a conservative anymore. I am suspecting you are, in fact a liberal troll attempting to defend the Idiot in chief at all costs.

I'm calling administrative attention to your comment. Anyone that tries to insinuate that someone is a racist is not a friend of conservatives.

FOR THE THIRD TIME......cite the specific authority on which Rawle relied his personal opinion as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.

Let me ask you something here.

I've given you a very detailed and reasonable answer here.

Still, you DEMAND that I cite a specific authority on which Rawle relied.

Let me ask you this: Who are you relying on as an authority to tell you what a natural born citizen is? And why is Rawle "not good enough for you?"

Is it David Ramsay?

Is it Samuel Roberts?

Is it Vattel? (Who had nothing to do with America at all?)

Those are the only early authorities I can even think of that try to make anything like your case.

If it's David Ramsay, then why are you relying on someone who was shot down 36 to 1?

And please CITE THE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY ON WHICH DAVID RAMSAY WAS RELYING.

If it's Samuel Roberts, they why are you relying on someone who was only responsible for several counties in Pennsylvania?

And CITE THE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY SAMUEL ROBERTS WAS RELYING ON.

If it's Vattel, then explain why he's even relevant, when no one even refers to him.

And CITE THE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY VATTEL WAS RELYING ON.

The fact is, you really, really, REALLY want to believe a particular theory.

You're not approaching the matter in any reasonably unbiased way.

If you were, you wouldn't keep demanding of one side of the argument that which you won't demand of the other.

Jeff Winston wrote:
So are you proposing that we repeal the 14th Amendment??

"Yeah, let's repeal the Amendment whose purpose was to make sure everyone understood "them n*****s were citizens, too." "

I wanted to call your attention to this comment by Jeff Winston. He is alleging that someone must be a racist if they think the 14th amendment has been abused. Only a Liberal would suggest such a thing.

It is my opinion that the first complaint most conservatives have regarding the 14th amendment is that it has been used to legalize the millions of abortions which have taken place since 1973! I argue that only a liberal would automatically assume "racism" as the reason for criticizing the 14th amendment. I think Jeff has "outed" himself by reverting to the standard liberal dogma of accusing someone of racism when they don't agree with liberal ideas.

Do we have any troll hunters here? Is this sufficient evidence for zapping? At the very least I feel Jeff should get an administrative warning.

I just wanted your opinion regarding my perception of this. I think his comment was WAY over the line.

So, Jeff, you are in the camp of those who believe the off-spring of two illegal aliens born in the US is a natural born Citizen? OK, then!

No, I've never said that. That particular issue has never been specifically addressed. I think using the ancient historical definitions, it's very plausible to argue that the children of illegal aliens shouldn't be natural born citizens.

I think the wording of the 14th Amendment makes it more difficult, because that wording doesn't quite match the more ancient definitions. Still, I think this is a case that could be argued.

Nonsense. When I was trying to get an accurate number, one website suggested there were 100,000 British Loyalist children born in the United States after 1776.

Those weren't anchor babies in any modern sense. They were the resulting consequences of the American Revolution.

No, from YOUR perspective, Criticism of the 14th can only come from someone who is a racist bigot.

When the main purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that black people in this country were not deprived of their civil rights and citizenship, and you suggest that the 14th Amendment was a BAD THING, what else am I SUPPOSED to think?

I'm calling administrative attention to your comment. Anyone that tries to insinuate that someone is a racist is not a friend of conservatives.

So now you're a whining little baby, just because I called you on the 100% obvious implication of your statement, and you want to run to the moderators, and tell on me for having called you on it. Fine.

As for someone being "not a friend" of conservatives, I'd say that anyone who persistently misrepresents the Constitution as you have done, racking up literally dozens of fallacious and misrepresenting claims (all of which I can clearly demonstrate) would qualify.

So this is your scheme, DiogenesLamp? Falsely accuse me of being a liberal troll in a bid to try to get the administrators to get rid of me so that you can abuse the Constitution with impunity?

I doubt it’s going to work.

Jim, I have documented more than 40 fallacious arguments this person has made to justify his misrepresenting the Constitution. I can explain why every single one of them is fallacious. I intend to post these in due time.

Now DiogenesLamp apparently wants you to “zot” me so that he can freely carry on his Constitutional abuse.

You are mistaken, legally speaking, there are not two forms of Citizen of the United States. All such citizens, no matter how they became citizens, are sovereign and all such citizens are equal under the law.

The Constitution list three qualifying requirements for the presidency: that citizenship was obtained naturally at birth (and retained since strongly implied, IMO), that one be 35+ years of age, and that one have been 14+ years a resident within the United States. These are all protective qualifications, not types of citizenship.

We do not speak of there being only two types of citizens, those who are under 35 years of age and those that are over. It is an artificial, false dichotomy and is silly. To speak of the condition of being a natural born Citizen as being a type of citizen is just as silly as speaking of a 35+ year old citizen as being a type of citizen. These are are simply some of the protective requirements, failing any of which disqualifies one from assuming the presidency.

Note that effect of the list is exclusive, that is failing any single item is a show stopper. Thus, one must not just have obtained one's citizenship at birth, but one must have obtained it naturally, that is by one's inborn nature, i.e., without force or action of any (man made) law.

If you cross a donkey with a horse, a jackass results. The result is neither a natural born donkey nor a natural born horse. What ensues is an unnatural hybrid, a half-breed mix that is neither truly donkey nor horse and is, in fact, sterile and unable to reproduce its own kind (let alone a donkey or a horse). I submit to the reader that, politically, our founders would have considered aka obama to be just such a jackass (not a natural born Citizen of any country).

By examining the writings of the founders, one can clearly see that the intent of the natural born Citizen requirement was to ensure that our Commander-in-Chief be born with sole, exclusive allegiance to the country that was to entrust him with its command. Aka obama, by his own admission (and taking a proven pathological liar at his word is indeed a risky proposition), was born equally a citizen of Great Britain as recognized by US treaty and law. It is insanity to suggest that the founders would have ever intended that such a person, born with equal allegiance to their former bloody enemy, be given command of their own military forces.

When two horses mate it takes no law to ensure that they do not produce a dog or a donkey. It is by nature that only a horse ensues. That is the clear and obvious meaning of the constitutional phrase "natural born." To produce a citizen by nature and nature alone (no law required) requires two parents who themselves are resident citizens. This was the founders' understanding in their use and inclusion of the phrase, natural born Citizen.

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.