Canadian-born Ted Cruz says “facts are clear” he’s eligible to be president

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ^ | 07/21/2013

[Ira_Louvin]

Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.

President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.

[Jeff Winston]

See the result of a president who is not a NBC? Now anyone can be president no matter where they’re born as long as one parent is a US citizen. That is now the “standard” apparently.

"Born a citizen" or "citizen by birth" has ALWAYS been the standard.

[RegulatorCountry]

the ONLY way you can be a NATURAL BORN citizen is to be born of TWO US citizen parents on US soil.

The only way you can be a natural-born citizen without a doubt is to be born of two US citizen parents on US soil.

Some authorities have gone further, relating to individuals born within US jurisdiction regardless of parentage. As to these there have been doubts, but never as to the first, which are those born to two citizen parents within US jurisdiction.

That is a paraphrase of Chief Justice Morrisson Waite in Minor v. Happersett.

The very first session of Congress attempted to legislate natural-born citizenship to those born beyond the sea to citizen parents, but this Act was repealed and replaced in 1795, making those born beyond the sea to citizen parents, citizens themselves. Just "citizens." The words "natural born" were deleted. This demonstrates that Original Intent was not automatic exclusion on the basis of not being born in the US, since the first Congress was largely comprised of Founders. There was clearly some problem with attempting to enact blanket legislation, however. That problem was foreign jus soli claims of sovereignty in my opinion.

[GregNH]

The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ can not possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?

There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?

There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.

1. Born in or out of a country.
2. Both parents are citizens.
3. One parent is a citizen.
4. Neither parent is a citizen.

The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

[Jeff Winston]

I’ve also seen some bizarre formula that said Rick Santorum was ineligible because his father or grandfather was born in Italy. and the best one yet was a claim that Michele Bachmann has dual citizenship because she was given honorary citizenship in Switzerland.

It became a tragic comedy and wasn’t worth talking about anymore especially in light of the fact that virtually every democrat and a good many “republicans” would be just as disastrous as Obama.

It is theater of the absurd.

By those idiotic "standards," George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison - the "Father of the Constitution" were all ineligible Presidents.

The Father of Our Country, the Father of the Declaration of Independence, and the Father of the Constitution. All "ineligible."

[null and void]

Or, more briefly:

If you owe allegiance to any other country, you cannot be President of this one.

[Ray76]

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution, quite obviously.

[Jeff Winston]

The problem is, it’s like the other side was minipulating the way the issue was being addressed. Obama was, and for all we know still might be, a citizen of Indonesia. He sealed the deal when he applied for college and scholarships as an Indonesian.

First of all, no one ever produced any evidence that he ever applied for college and scholarships as an Indonesian.

The "evidence" that he did is the same "evidence" that George Zimmerman walked up and started a fight with Trayvon Martin. It doesn't exist. It's an ALLEGATION.

Secondly, if he HAD taken Indonesian citizenship, it wouldn't matter. 3 of our first 4 Presidents held French citizenship - while serving as President.

There's no provision excluding a dual citizen from being President. Never has been.

If it's really a concern (such as dual citizenship with China or Iran, for example) the Founding Fathers were relying on THE PEOPLE to have enough COMMON SENSE not to elect the guy.

[3Fingas]

Thank you for that detailed explanation of laws concerning NBC. It would be really nice to have the matter addressed by the Supreme Court. As the foreign born population increases in the US, I expect this question to come up more frequently.

[lonestar]

Cruz's mother was over the age of 19...which has something to do with being natural born citizen. Ann Dunham was only 17.

I would love to see Crus on the Supreme Court...for decades.

[M Kehoe]

3 of our first 4 Presidents held French citizenship - while serving as President.

I know about Jefferson, and his reasoning. Please list the other presidents, and your sources.

Thank you.

5.56mm

[MamaTexan]

I think you meant to type something else, and it's hard to tell what it is.

I'd typed exactly what I'd meant to.

-----

We have three branches of federal government.

Acknowledged, but irrelevant. The authority is either there, or it is not.

[Sherman Logan]

an 18th century French text written by a Swiss "philosopher" who argued that the State has first claim on the labor of every citizen.

Most critically, this philosopher based his doctrines on civil law descended from the decrees of Roman emperors.

British and US law is based on the common law, with entirely different precepts and doctrines.

[El Gato]

If he has such a certificate, then he can’t be natural born. Natural Born status requires no law to make it so, and certainly no paperwork, other than documentation of place of birth and citizenship status of the parents, which of course could be by place of birth as well. The only questions would arise when a parent was not US born, but could have been a citizen at the time of the birth.

[Hostage]

It’s not in Article 1. The eligibility requirements for President are in Article 2, Section 1:

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

The meaning of “natural born citizen” compared to citizen by birth or naturalized citizen was known to the Founders who drafted the Constitution. The meaning was clearly rooted in English Common Law. It was not defined in the Constitution because the States defined these terms based on English Common Law.

John Bingham, a Republican Congressman from the state of Ohio, stated in the House of Representatives in 1866 the unequivocal meaning of the phrase ‘Natural Born Citizen’

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; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.

Bingham was trained as a lawyer and would have been expert on English Common Law as this body of law was used to underpin the laws of the United States and is still used as historical reference material in the formulation of decisions.

Bingham’s statement “born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” means born on the soil of the United States or its possessions, and of two citizen parents because dual citizenship was not allowed at the time. One could not be a citizen of the United States and at the same time a citizen of another country. A parent “owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” would not be a citizen of the United States.

[El Gato]

There is NO LEGAL basis for a third class of citizenship, if there is show me the class in the U.S. CODE!!!!

The US Code cannot redefine terms in the Constitution. Absent a Constitutional amendment, they mean now what they meant then.

You want Congress defining "arms" or "speech" or "the press" or "unreasonable search or seizure"?

[Political Junkie Too]

In my opinion, "natural born" is not a third category of citizenship, it is an additional qualification to be president.

You will note that the qualification to be a Representative or Senator is simply "citizen," but the qualification to be President is "natural-born citizen."

Question: Why add the extra criterion if there are only two classifications for citizen?

Answer: Because "natural-born" is not a classification of "citizen," it is an extra qualification to be met for the citizens who wish to become President.

The Preamble of the Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

There is your constitutional definition of natural-born citizen right there at the beginning of the Constitution: "...ourselves [We the People] and our Posterity [future children]."

Natural born citizens are the children born of We the People, for whom the Constitution was ordained and established to secure. How else would they "secure the Blessings of Liberty" except by limiting the qualification for the highest office in the land to the citizen children of citizen parents?

-PJ

[Jeff Winston]

There is one Supreme Court case that mentions NBC, preceding the 14th amendment and the Supreme Court case that famously misinterpreted the 14th's intent (neither of which mentioned the specific case of NBC). Under that unique precedent Obama is ineligible, regardless of his birthplace or birth certificate, so the Obots strive to keep it out of the discussion.

This is simply not true.

This poster refers to Minor v. Happersett (1875), which birthers falsely claim established a "binding precedent" that you have to have both US citizen parents and birth on US soil in order to be a natural born citizen.

The case simply doesn't say that. There was even a US court that specifically RULED that Minor v. Happersett said no such thing.

It's about 1 or 2 sentences, that were completely irrelevant to the resolution of that case (and therefore IN NO WAY a precedent).

Those 1 or 2 sentences say that no one has ever doubted that children born in the US to citizen parents were natural born citizens. It says that, at that time, some authorities also said anyone born in the US was a citizen, whether their parents were citizens or not. But for the purposes of that case, the court was not even going to examine that question as it was irrelevant to the case at hand.

So the birthers have elevated that tiny bit of DICTA ("something said in passing") and claimed it's "binding precedent" when it absolutely is no such thing.

Meanwhile they insist that the excruciatingly detailed 30 or 40 page discussion of the entire legal history of NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP in the Wong Kim Ark case is completely irrelevant.

And they do so in spite of the fact that that discussion absolutely IS binding precedent, because it was the core reasoning of the case.

The treatment of both of these cases is utterly ridiculous, and absolutely hypocritical.

I'm sure there are those who don't understand the law who have honestly and sincerely been taken in by it. But when it comes to those who originally put forth the Minor v. Happersett claims, it's nothing but clown-show sleight of hand, and BS propaganda that couldn't be further from the truth.

[INVAR]

However, for purpose of discussion let us assume your definition is correct. It is profoundly obvious that many millions of impeccably natural-born citizens, by your definition, feel no loyalty to America.

That does not negate the Founders' intent or the Law in regards to the requirements for President. I think it was unfathomable to them at the time, that Americans themselves would teach generations of their children to loathe their country and hold ideas anathema to themselves, liberty and their posterity.

Nation-state loyalties is what the Founders were familiar with and what had plagued Europe for centuries. That is what they were most concerned with as nation-state factionalism already existed in the young county at the time of the Convention.

What exists today is loyalty to ideology, which is the religion of most of whom are politically invested. When you have devotion to ideology, the rule of law is moot - because it can be waived or ignored to advance the ideology and it's causes.

In such an environment, we become a nation ruled by the whims and passions of the moment - no longer governed by the rule of law.

If we're going to play the game of precedents, then we lose our liberty and become no different than those who readily ignore the law and it's intent to push a political religion and agenda on the rest.

[El Gato]

I wish the Supremes would rule specifically on the issue so we could stop arguing about it.

They obviously don't care to do that, since several cases have risen to their level, and they declined cert on them.

[Jeff Winston]

I’m in line with the original intent of the Constitution and 200 years of constiutional scholars and legal minds.

No, you aren't.

And whenever anyone posts the actual historical quotes of our Founding Fathers and early legal experts, you simply ignore them, just because you don't like what our Founding Fathers and early legal experts actually said.