Posted on 03/12/2015 12:32:49 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Two of the top lawyers for the Obama and Bush administrations agree on this: Sen. Ted Cruz can become president. Legally speaking, anyway.
Paul D. Clement, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, and Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general for President Obama, penned a piece for the Harvard Law Review tackling the question of what the Constitution means when it says that the president must be at least 35 years old, a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and a “natural born Citizen.”
“All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time,” they wrote. “And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”
Cruz was born in a Canadian hospital to a mother who was a U.S. citizen. But he’s only the latest potential presidential candidate who has had his qualifications questioned. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) was born in Arizona before it was a state. Gov. George Romney (R-Mich.) was delivered in Mexico to U.S. residents. All were qualified to serve, . . . .
The First Congress, they noted, established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were themselves citizens at birth “and explicitly recognized that such children were ‘natural born citizens.’
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“But if we are having this debate on FR, you can bet the Dims and the Leftists will bring the same questions to the fore should he declare.”
I don’t think so, Justice Ginsburg probably one of the most liberal justices ever, said that she believed her grandchild who were born in Paris are natural born citizens.
The thing about the Wong decision is that people in 1898 thought that the ruling made Wong eligible to be president.
“The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.” William D. Guthrie, May, 1898, Lectures on the Fourteenth Article to the Constitution of the United States
It will be interesting to see if the same Supreme Court decision that is primarily responsible for Barack Obama being ruled eligible is used to rule Ted Cruz ineligible: Honolulu versus Calgary.
I wonder if Senator Cruz was ever issued a Certificate of Naturalization.
Birth of U.S. Citizens Abroad
A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.
According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.
The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.
Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.
Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA, or Form FS-240)
If you are a U.S. citizen and have a child overseas, you should report his or her birth as soon as possible so that a Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be issued as an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship. Report the birth of your child abroad at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. Check the American Citizens Services portion of the webpage for the nearest Embassy or Consulate in the country where your child was born for further instructions about how to apply for a CRBA. Please note:
A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. citizen is only issued to a child who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and who is generally under the age of 18 at the time of the application.
The U.S. embassy or consulate will provide one original copy of an eligible child’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen.
A more secure Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen was introduced in January 2011. This new CRBA has been updated with a variety of state of the art security features, and is printed centrally in the United States. U.S. embassies and consulates no longer print CRBAs locally, but you still must apply there. The central production was initiated to ensure uniform quality and reduce vulnerability to fraud. The previous version of the CRBA continues to be valid proof of U.S. citizenship.
You may replace, amend or request multiple copies of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen at any time.
Persons who acquired U.S. citizenship or U.S. nationality at birth in one of the following current or former territories or outlying possessions of the United States during relevant time periods are not eligible for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen because such persons are not considered to have been born abroad. Individuals born in these locations during the relevant times may establish acquisition of U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality, based upon the applicable agreement or statute, by producing their birth certificate issued from the local Vital Records Office along with any other evidence required to establish acquisition:
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands American Samoa
Guam
Swains Island
The Panama Canal Zone before October 1, 1979
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands after January 8, 1978 (8PM EST)
The Philippines before July 4, 1946
Other Citizenship Documents Issued to U.S. Citizens Born Abroad
Certification of Report of Birth (DS-1350)
As of December 31, 2010, the Department of State no longer issues Certifications of Reports of Births (DS-1350). All previously issued DS-1350s are still valid for proof of identity, citizenship and other legal purposes.
Certificate of Citizenship issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
A person born abroad who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth but who is over the age of 18 (and so not eligible for a CRBA) may wish to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship to document acquisition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1452.
Visit USCIS.gov for further information.
An Act Of Congress signed into law by a President or becoming law over a veto is deemed to be in accordance with the Constitution unless and until it is ruled unconstitutional.
For example, from a ruling on Barack Obama’s eligibility:
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny v Daniels, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
That legal challenge went to the Georgia Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court and both courts refused to review the lower court’s ruling.
I include your entire post to illustrate the error:
Citizen of the United States at Birth” is one category and “Naturalized U.S. Citizen” is a completely different category.“Naturalized U.S. Citizen” includes those granted citizenship at birth by Congress, proven by naturalization statute Pub.L. 82–414 § 301(a)(7); 66 Stat. 236.There is no such category in U.S. Law: constitutional, statutory, common or administrative law as “Citizen by Birth.”
In addition to Congressional Act, there is the Supreme Court:
“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” – U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
Citizen at birth is not the same as citizen by birth.
Roll again my long time Obot adversary. Despite your efforts to gull conservatives, to misleadingly entice them with a potential candidate, Obama is not eligible.
Ah, so you would argue that the Congress could pass a law instituting Catholicism or Islam or Hinduism as the national religion and it would be deemed to be in accordance with the Constitution until the courts declared it wasn't? (This despite the clear prohibition thereof in the first amendment.) Preposterous.
For example, from a ruling on Barack Obama’s eligibility
Oh, that's a good one!
Let's cite something that could conceivably indict multiple congresses, multiple judges, and the military as if they didn't have some interest in covering it up after the deed was done!
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny v Daniels, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
That legal challenge went to the Georgia Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court and both courts refused to review the lower court’s ruling.
Why should I care what a court says that the Constitution or law says? It's clear that they're more than willing to ignore both to suit their political ends. (See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Roberts's BS.)
Thank you.
In the absence of other evidence I agree:
...the following, which was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton.Copy of a paper Communicated to J. M. by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philada. 1787, which he said delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.
... Article IX § 1. No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003449%29%29
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized,
either by treaty,
or
by authority of congress
In either case they are naturalized.
The act of Congress which you cite states “citizen”.
The Supreme Court has not made a decision that Obama is eligible. Cruz could not be issued a Certificate of Naturalization, upon request and with supporting documentation he could be issued a Certificate of Citizenship.
> Ankeny v Daniels
Retard alert
I tend to believe that many people in the US ,be they Obamites or Cruzites or going back to McKinley etc. are for free wheeling politics especially if and when such politics suits ‘my’ desires. I recall being at a hearing in the state when a bureaucrat expressed a view that all things are relative and it is the immediate needs and opinions of those in office that are paramount. It took Ronald Reagan to put that person under the buss.
I very much doubt it will come to that because I have long become accustomed to seeing court decisions based on one thing at one time, and the opposite thing at another time.
They have no consistency of logic, so I don't see it being a problem for them to once again believe two different things which are contradictory.
It is just an amusing pastime for us more rational thinkers to poke fun at their ability to believe "two impossible things before breakfast.", well, except for the fact that it has real world detrimental consequences. That part's not funny.
I wonder if Senator Cruz was ever issued a Certificate of Naturalization.
He has derivative citizenship. They don't even issue certificates of naturalization for the children of naturalized aliens. They don't have their own numbers or their own certificates. They are Derivative citizens based on the naturalization of their parent(s).
So no, he wouldn't have his own certificate.
Sorry, but your comment is irrelevant.
The way our system works is that when the Supremes have defined the meaning of a term in the Constitution, it is definitive.
I don’t agree with all their interpretations, and their doing so is probably not exactly what the Founders intended, but you really can’t dispute that this is how our system now works.
So, yes, if the Supremes were to issue a comprehensive definition of the constitutional meaning of NBC, it would end the discussion, at least in practical terms.
Quite a trick, that.
Ending the discussion does not make something reality. I point out that the Courts have long been divorced from reality, and you suggest we just go along with their fantasies.
I see a larger arc of History.
Yep. All they way back past the unCivl War and even before the Constitution was finished.
The seed for the split between the collective legal world and the individual Natural world was planted long ago.
And the government continually trying to move the goalposts hasn't helped at all.
---
Good morning DL. :-)
You are of course entirely free to believe and preach that the Supremes are wrong.
It may give you a comforting feeling to believe you’re right, but it doesn’t change anything in the world.
I was speaking of practical political realities, not theoretical abstractions.
There is only one way to keep any organization intact for an extended period. When severe disagreements arise, there HAS to be a mechanism by which they are settled. Otherwise, the organization falls apart.
Classic example is Catholicism vs. Protestantism. The RC Church is still an intact group primarily because the Pope can settle controversies permanently. Protestantism has split into thousands of groups over the centuries, with new ones forming all the time, because it has no way to settle disagreements.
So if you want a country that lasts a long time, some group has to have the power to settle things. In our present system, that’s the Court.
Obama was ruled NBC because he was, or at least was assumed by the Court to be, born in the USA.
Since all agree Cruz was born in Canada, I don’t see any connection at all between the legal arguments in the two cases.
BTW, there have been claims President Arthur was born in Canada.
And Good Morning to you! :)
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.