Posted on 08/30/2013 12:02:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
By Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow In Constitutional Sudies and Editor-In-Chief, Cato Supreme Court Review
As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas — love him or hate him — continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret: Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
(Full disclosure: I’m Canadian myself, with a green card. Also, Cruz has been a friend since his days representing Texas before the Supreme Court.)
But does that mean that Cruz’s presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards, having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate?
No, actually, and it’s not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency. (The Founding Fathers didn’t want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)
What’s a “natural born citizen”? The Constitution doesn’t say, but the Framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.
There’s no ideological debate here: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson — who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases — co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain’s eligibility. Recall that McCain — lately one of Cruz’s chief antagonists — was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.
In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth — as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later (“naturalizes”) or who isn’t a citizen at all — can be president.
So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.
That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 — Cruz was born in 1970 — someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.
So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there’s no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn’t have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn’t have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else. (For those born since 1986, by the way, the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years, at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)
In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldn’t be in doubt. As Tribe and Olson said about McCain — and could’ve said about Obama, or the Mexico-born George Romney, or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater — Cruz “is certainly not the hypothetical ‘foreigner’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.”
Ok, looks like you don’t want to help us in this effort. So I’ll leave it this way. If you try to torpedo our chances, don’t be surprised when your account here no longer works.
The 1795 bill did not change the definition of Natural Born citizen that was restated in the 1790 bill. The language in the 1790 bill reflected the founders understanding at the time of the drafting of the constitution that children of citizens born abroad would be included within the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen.
The fact that it was not repeated in the 1795 legislation did not redefine their status as Natural born citizens. It merely clarified the residency requirement.
If you believe that Washington did not intend at the time of the drafting of the constitution that children of citizens born abroad would have the same Natural Born Citizen status as children born in the states, then he would not have signed the 1790 legislation.
The definition of Natural Born Citizens did not change in the 1785 legislation it was simply not restated.
Again, since you seem to know more about this tan Mark Levin or George Washington I assumed you must have completed law school.
What are your credentials as compared towel Levin or even Ted Cruz?
Btw is this a deal breaker for you?
Are you so invested in your interpretation of NBC that if the choice were between Chris Christie and Ted Cruz in a primary that you would be compelled to vote for Christie or sit out the primary?
You just go through life insulting people? Nice schtick.
Try not misrepresenting what I posted. How you can misconstrue the actual wording from the actual 1795 document, that’s creative. The two Acts did not use the same language. I can read it as well as you should be able to. So, where is the argument?
Never though I would see the day where people could not read the simple words on paper and still pretend it doesn’t say what it says.
YOU brought the 1790 Act into the conversation, yet you get insulting when it is pointed out that that same bill was repealed and the language changed. Why get mad at me? I didn’t write it. I didn’t repeal it. It exists, so what is wrong with being accurate about the thing?
Your call of course. I don’t get where you think my pointing to a possible legal challenge by the dems is fighting against Cruz. I thought I was pointing out the most obvious thing in the world.
So we cower in fear and vote for the "safe" candidate and let our fear of the other side determine our decisions on who leads the country into the future?
Is that our strategy for the next 3 years?
Not vote for Cruz out of fear of what the other side might try?
Good strategy. The GOP would agree.
No wonder we always end up wth McCains and Romneys.
Whatever. You do what you think you have to do and I’ll do likewise. And that applies to the entire birther cottage industry. You, Hillary, Tokyo Rove and the GOP-e can all get together and have a high old time. You’re all going to be joined at the hip against Cruz.
Sorry Padre...........it's you that is in error.
This is why [Article II; Section I] differentiates between "Natural Born Citizen".....or "Citizen" (I won't say......."plain old" because some folks get upset at that).
Now....would you like to tell me which one of those definitions are the one's naturalized? One was defining folks born of the land prior to the ratification and after...... and the other one.....folks born of the land to parents also of the land....obviously after the ratification.
So according to you..... one of those definitions apply to folks that were naturalized as well. Which one....Padre?
[Article II; Section I U.S. Constitution]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.
I don’t suggest that at all.
I think we should go at it head first.
So since they gave McCain a Resolution, perhaps something like that could be done for Cruz. That way the dems can NOT come after him later.
I would not propose that anyone in this country avoid voting for their chosen candidate out of fear of anything. And I don’t believe in such a thing as a safe candidate. Not for our side.
We who love Liberty and do not cower in the face of our enemies say: bring it on!
I won't call you anything of the sort. For all I know....you're probably a very nice person and loved by many.
I believe the statement you had made was this:
but you still haven’t supported your “two parent” theory......yet you quote it as if it’s Biblical...
And I was pointing out that the term was related to the "Law of Nations" and meant born of two parents already citizens of the land.
Judge Livingston (1814) quoted Vattel in a Supreme Court decision and actually included the pertinent phrase in his own words. What more do you want? Your the one that said I hadn't supported my theory. Not only did I support it.....I proved to you that the Lexicon of the late 18th century/early 19th century included exactly what the phrase meant and the Court quoted it publicly.....obliterating any nonsense that it was a mere theory!
LOL, I don’t think I top the Birther industry. I’m rather tame when it comes to that.
I read, I do it because it was a question that seemed to have no clear answer - the natural born thing - and I became curious. So, I read period writings and such, and hope that I stumble across a letter from no less that G.W. with his own definition of the term written out.
I know I haven’t found the answer, not in the thousands of posts nor the hundreds of hours I have spent reading historical accounts, but I have learned a lot.
I won’t disregard the facts of history, nor will I state something as a fact if I have not got solid reference to back it up. So, you see, I am destined to only be a very junior member of the birther mob.
With the Roberts perfidy exposed over obamanoidcare, what do we the people do when he disqualifies Cruz at the last hour, ushering a win for the democrips? I am pondering that sad scenario because to not think about it is to make yourself vulnerable for political slaughter. I do not trust Roberts AT ALL. He is owned and without honor.
Did you happen to notice his signature on the 1790 naturalization act?
It appears to me that you harbor some doubt about the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" as it applies to someone in Ted Cruz's shoes.
Are you willing to give Ted Cruz the benefit of that doubt, or are you intent on riding this train all the way to the end even if it means the end of our Republic?
We take up arms.
Powerful words and a painfully accurate assessment of our dire situation.
I’ve thought a lot about this since Lakeshark posted his proposal that we temporarily set aside arguments about Cruz’s eligibility. I have always been of the opinion that statutory citizenship is, in and of itself, an act of naturalization by Congress. The fact that Congress can revoke statutory citizenship at will but cannot do so to 14th Amendment citizens further confirms my opinion. So I would be a hypocrite if I said that I believe, without a doubt, that Cruz is eligible. I doubt I will change my opinion anytime soon. It took five years of research to develop it; so a few days of debate on FR isn’t going to reverse it.
With that said, I will still support and vote for Cruz if he runs, provided that he stays the course he is on now. If he pulls a Rubio, then all bets are off.
We are indeed in a fight for our remaining liberties. We have a choice to make. We can take our constitutionally eligible ball and go home or we can follow in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers and fight like hell to win any way we can.
Be careful about tossing aside the Constitution in order to get the President you want because you may wake up the day after the election without not only the President you wanted but also the Constitution that you once had.
Very wise words.
If Cruz is deemed a NBC, obviously so would be Zero. Since he was purportedly born in the US even.
Of course his phony life is not his real life, but that’s another chapter in the tale.
This is insane.
So, McCain got a resolution. Can’t Cruz get one also? It stops any of the attacks the progressives will certainly bring. It worked for McCain. Why make it into a pissing match?
The “doubt” stems from reading the Joint Resolutions that our lawmakers tried to pass on this very topic. They wanted to do away with that natural born requirement but none of the attempts passed. That puts them in the drivers seat to attack someone like Cruz over the issue.
It does not matter what I THINK, not at all. All that matters is what could happen and why. It’s why I would rather see it addressed head on and resolved before he decides if he will run.
From Blackstone, year 1765: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html
Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
He didn't need one. Neither does Cruz. Citizenship at birth is the hallmark of Natural Born Citizenship. Both McCain and Cruz were born Citizens of the United States. If you can't accept that then vote for Christie or Hillary. Then you can sleep easily knowing that nobody is going to mount a useless and vain lawsuit to try to disqualify your candidate.
The birthers have been trying to undo the 2008 and 2012 elections using the NBC clause. How's that working out? Last time I checked nobody has gotten anywhere. Yet these birthers keep kicking against the pricks. You'd think they'd all have sore toes by now.
No court will ever rule that Ted Cruz is not a NBC. However you can decide for youself whether or not this is a deal breaker for you. Ultimately you get to decide whether or not to give Ted Cruz the benefit of your doubt and work for his election, or whether you can't, in good conscience vote for him while our constitutional Republic crumbles at your feet.
It's YOUR choice. The Supreme Court is not going to make the decision for you. You have to make it for yourself.
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.