Skip to comments.Chin: Ted Cruz can be president, probably
Posted on 08/14/2013 5:45:12 AM PDT by Perdogg
The Constitution says that only "natural born citizens" are eligible to be president. Is Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas eligible, given that he was born in Canada of a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father?
If Cruz runs, 2016 will be the third consecutive election in which there were questions about the right of a major party candidate to serve. Unfortunately, the Framers left few clues about exactly what a "natural born citizen" is; Congress has not used the phrase in citizenship statutes since 1790.
(Excerpt) Read more at news4jax.com ...
If Obama can be President, why not Cruz?
In defining an Article II natural born Citizen, it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born Citizen. Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a natural born Citizen.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolutions first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789) Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task .
www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the original citizens were and then defined the natural born citizens as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, [c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens . Id. at 6. He added that citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring . Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776 . Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a natural born citizen. Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined natural born Citizen. Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born Citizen and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a natural-born citizen the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a natural born Citizen the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsays article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born Citizen and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattels definition the reference to fathers and father and replaced it with parents and person, respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, said that the clause was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of natural born Citizen as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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. . . . John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.
Obama fails to meet this natural born Citizen eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obamas birth, Obamas father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
Obama may be a plain born citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsays clear presentation, citizenship as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776 . Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Funny thing is Obama sat on the committee that determined John McCains elegibility to run against him. What a screwed up Congress we have...
Like everything else he touches, Obama destroyed the natural born citizen clause. It no longer has any meaning.
My Only concern now is whether a candidate has divided loyalty.
Cruz is in every sense of the word a Natural Born American.
Obama is in every sense of the word a Natural Born America hater.
Well... for that matter, why not the guy who comes here every day and empties the waste baskets???
I am with Ted Cruz and will eagerly support him for president.
There were MANY founding fathers and each had their own individual opinions on how things should be.....but it is the consensus of the entire group and what they put in writing that counts and it seems Ramsay’s opinion didn’t count for much. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is a joke within the American judicial system. Has he ever won a case?
I can’t wait to see hordes of democRats turn into raving birthers!
After Obama, why not?
Why don't we get the SCOTUS to take one of the many really well presented eligibility appeals that have reached their holy offices and you know, like, rule on it or whatever?
Why do we pay these guys, (and commie law-bimbos) again? I would really like to know their august opinion on what a citizen is, what a "natural born Citizen" is, whether or not a child born in the USA to two aliens, legal or otherwise, is a citizen, or heavens forfend, if one can be made a citizen after entering ther country illegally.
How about the SCOTUS getting off its black-robed posterior and figuring this out for us. I agree with Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio, et al, but since none of us has the word "SCOTUS" on our paycheck, and Barry and Reggie, Michelle, Bo The Dog, still fly over our impoverished heads in separate government aircraft, it really doesn't matter much what we and Sheriff Joe think.
Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas,
I know you agree with me, Mario, and Leo. How's about getting off your asses and doing something about it? I.E., before another justice croaks or resigns and the Mombasa MF appoints Raúl Castro to the bench.
Natural born citizen:
Born in the country
Not Born in the country
Remember, no act of legislation, and not even a Constitutional amendment can make a “natural born citizen” out of a person who would not have been accepted as one at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
I agree. I’m not 100% sure if Cruz is tehnically a Natural Born Citizen, but he is certainly a patriotic Amercian.
Assuming Obama really was born in Hawaii, he technically would be a NBC, but by the spirit of the law, he is not even close. He was born to a foreign, Marxist father, who returned to his home country shortly after his son’s birth and a Marxist mother. He was born (if we believe the official story) in a state that had just become a state and is thousands of miles from the mainland. He spent his formative years in Indonesia, an Islamic, anti-American nation.
Even if such a man showed no signs of divided loyalties and was ostensibly a patriotic American (unlike Obama), the voters should reject such a man from being POTUS based upon the potential of divided loyalities and his lack of a real, American upbringing. I think Barack Hussein Obama is exactly the type of man the founders were thinking of when they adopted the natural born citizen requirement.
Right, I think that our office clean up guy is WAAAY smarter and he DOES know what work is.
FYI, Jersey Man, Apuzzo is a very well respected and highly successful attorney in your state who has always done quite well for his clients.
He has not done well in getting his clients heard on this eligibility matter. He believes in the Constitution, while those in power in the United States do not. The fact that his POV has not yet prevailed is no reason to condemn him.
Speaking of attorneys and respect, your POTUS is a disbarred attorney. This gets your respect?
I don’t know whether Cruz is constitutionally eligible or not, BUT the media will HAVE to say he is, in the end, or face going into more detail into Obama’s eligibility, which they definitely do not want.
Toronto is a heck of a lot closer than Nairobi!
Two wrongs don't make a right. Quit chipping away at the US Constitution.
I see that you are no different than the lamestreet media except you are carrying Mario's water instead of Barry's.
I dont know whether Cruz is constitutionally eligible or not, BUT the media will HAVE to say he is, in the end, or face going into more detail into Obamas eligibility, which they definitely do not want.BINGO! - Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner!
I hope Cruz starts to run, campaigns just long enough to get a lot of media coverage so that they can't ignore him when he announces that after having thoroughly researched the matter, he is ineligible due to his father having been a foreigner when he (Ted) was born. The regime-stream media's collective heads would explode.
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.