Cruz says he is a US citizen 'by birth' despite being born in Canada

FOXNEWS.com ^ | October 28, 2013 | unknown

[txrangerette]

Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.

"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.

[BuckeyeTexan]

However, the word “born” in “natural born citizens” suggests that “born” citizens who are statuatory are also constitutionally protected.

SCOTUS said in Rogers v. Bellei that "statutory only" citizens (your term) have no constitutional right to their citizenship. Therefore no such protection attaches. Again, the dissent believed they did have constitutional protection under 14A because they were naturalized.

Today, SCOTUS would likely rule with you.

[DiogenesLamp]

Children of immigrants (born outside of US) DO have to go through a naturalization process. It is bundled with their parents application but the children certainly do need to be declared and allowed residence followed by citizenship.

Fine. Explain what process the children of immigrants go through. I can't imagine a 1 year old filling out any paperwork or taking a test or swearing an oath of loyalty, but you go ahead and explain to us what process the CHILDREN go through.

[DiogenesLamp]

I do. But I think the irony of your statements currently escapes you.

And so you respond without offering any clarification? Of COURSE YOU know what you meant when you wrote that, but I certainly can't read your mind.

Why waste both our times with what amounts to a dig?

[DiogenesLamp]

I know from that many think Congress power deals only with non-Americans becoming Americans. But, it is obvious that one must define US citizen in order to determine those who require being naturalized.

Just as much as you must define ARMS before people can exercise the right guaranteed under the 2nd amendment.

But wait. Are we sure we want congress to have the power to define ARMS? What if they change the definition to something other than what the founders intended?

[SoConPubbie]

Why waste both our times with what amounts to a dig?

Oh, you mean like this?

Someone who does not comprehend this is not worth arguing with.

Physician, heal thyself.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'd be agreeable to your stipulations if it led to any proof from the US Constitution,

We've already both agreed that there is nothing in that document which explicitly defines it.

US Law,

I've already pointed out that a US Law "Tail" can't wag a Constitutional Dog. You can't rewrite the meaning of the Constitution by changing or writing Statutes. You have to do an amendment.

or Supreme Court Ruling that corroborates your understanding of what it means to be Eligible to be President of the US.

If you can show me where members of the Supreme Court had direct and first hand knowledge of the deliberations of the Delegates and/or ratifiers, then you will have a point. Barring that, Supreme Court rulings can only be regarded as secondary proof unless said Supreme Court justices were actually there.

However, as with all those who remain adamant that it requires 2 citizen parents at time of birth for a citizen to be eligible to be President, you will attempt to use authorities outside of the current US Constitution,

No more so than your side does. (Remember Blackstone?)

you will attempt to use authorities outside of ...US Law,

Absolutely. The US Law cannot retroactively define what happened in 1787, at which time the meaning was set in concrete and can not thereafter be changed. Any proof will absolutely be outside of US Law, because all proof occurred BEFORE US Constitutional law existed.

and/or US Supreme Court Ruling to establish your definition as correct.

No, actually I will rely on several US Supreme Court rulings. Especially those from Justices WHO WERE ACTUAL DELEGATES.

[DiogenesLamp]

Please show us, from the US Constitution, where it definitively defines eligibility as requiring 2 citizen parents at time of birth from someone to be President of the US.

I will do so, right after YOU show me where the word "Arms" is defined. "A's" come first. My definition is on the "N" page of the constitutional dictionary.

[xzins]

Cuban citizen for 30 years.

You seem also to be assuming he dropped his Cuban citizenship.

[SoConPubbie]

I've already pointed out that a US Law "Tail" can't wag a Constitutional Dog. You can't rewrite the meaning of the Constitution by changing or writing Statutes. You have to do an amendment.

Look at your first statement and then compare it to your this statement.

Nowhere, in the US Constitution, does it define or state that Laws concerning Citizenship have to be defined, explicitly, in the Constitution. Therefore, it is left up to EITHER Congress OR the Amendment process to define what "Natural Born" is. There currently is no definition defining "Natural Born" as requiring two citizen parents, therefore, if you want it to mean that, then either get Congress to pass a law, or get an Amendment passed or let the US Supreme Court rule on it. But making a definitive statement that it HAS to go through the Amendment process is incorrect.

[DiogenesLamp]

“Natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution or anywhere, for that matter, except in the Naturalization Law of 1790.

It isn't defined there either, but that law you are so fond of citing,FORBIDS citizenship to the child of a foreign father.

Therefore, it has every right to define “natural born citizen” to carry out its constitutional role.

No more so than it has the right to define "Arms" to carry out it's constitutional role. Nope. Congress must accept the meanings as rock solid and unchanging except through constitutional amendment.

Congress is not a mini constitutional convention.

[SoConPubbie]

No, actually I will rely on several US Supreme Court rulings. Especially those from Justices WHO WERE ACTUAL DELEGATES.

There are no Supreme Court rulings that establish/define "Natural Born" as requiring 2 citizen parents.

[DiogenesLamp]

Exactly.

And as I replied, You first. Show us the definition of "Arms."

[xzins]

The section of the law which Scotus upheld was removed by Congress, so I’m sure it would be different the next time around.

In addition to the dissent, the Scotus had to overrule a lower court that had found stripping of citizenship to be unconstitutional....but that’s why they’re lower courts. :>)

[SoConPubbie]

If you can show me where members of the Supreme Court had direct and first hand knowledge of the deliberations of the Delegates and/or ratifiers, then you will have a point. Barring that, Supreme Court rulings can only be regarded as secondary proof unless said Supreme Court justices were actually there.

Does not matter.

Legality in the US is established by the US Constitution, US Laws, and Rulings of the US Supreme Court.

Blackstone, "direct and first-hand knowledge of the deliberations fo the Delegats and/or ratifiers", whatever else you want to throw at this discussion, have no Legal relevance where the Legal definition, at this point in time , of "Natural Born" is concerned. They can be used to help shape an opinion at the Supreme Court level, but it would only be used as a starting point and would take in the context of that point in history. I don't think it can be argued against, that the current justices, after considering everything, including the political context of today, would not agree with your definition. I could be wrong, since the extreme leftists, marxists on the Court don't follow any rules except winning at any costs, but I think I am safe in my position on this.

[Nero Germanicus]

“The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had ELSEWHERE. To determine that.”—SCOTUS, 1875.
Minor v. Happersett

[DiogenesLamp]

If a case made it to the Supreme Court, there would probably, dependent on the Justice (i.e. Scalia vs. Ginsburg) and their political leanings and their fidelity to the correct purpose of their position, will take the original interpretation into consideration.

I'm not interested in discussing what any current court would decide. It's my opinion that the entire legal system took a wrong turn back at Wong Kim Ark (though the Wong opinion is not necessarily incorrect, rather it is merely how subsequent people have interpreted it as applying to other situations which is incorrect.)

The Modern legal system is currently polluted with numerous false doctrines, and is therefore unsuitable to analyze this question until those false doctrines are extirpated.

I'm interested in starting with the people who absolutely know the correct answer, and working my way up from there. And that means starting with the Delegates who wrote, debated, and voted on the law.

These are the only actual authorities with first hand knowledge.

[xzins]

Nor is that definition in the Constitution, although it is a more concrete term, and easier to define.

“Natural born citizen” appears obvious to me given the Naturalization Law of 1790 in which Congress decrees it to include at birth citizen based also on blood descent. From the Congressional Record we see they simply appropriated Blackstone’s commentary on that subject, and appear to have used “natural born citizen” in the same way as Blackstone used “natural born subject.”

So, it’s obvious....if you ask ME.

[xzins]

Nor is that definition in the Constitution, although it is a more concrete term, and easier to define.

“Natural born citizen” appears obvious to me given the Naturalization Law of 1790 in which Congress decrees it to include at birth citizen based also on blood descent. From the Congressional Record we see they simply appropriated Blackstone’s commentary on that subject, and appear to have used “natural born citizen” in the same way as Blackstone used “natural born subject.”

So, it’s obvious....if you ask ME.

[DiogenesLamp]

And of course, our high priest of Court worship shows up to grovel at the feet of those Judges whose robes he feels unworthy of touching, but one hears that doing so cures cancer or something.

[DiogenesLamp]

We define free speech. We define terms of the 2nd amendment.

And congress has the power to change it?