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 ...
> Nothing in the Constitution, it’s amendments, US Law, or SCOTUS ruling unambiguously defines “Natural Born” as requiring 2 US Citizens at birth or requiring birth to take place in the US. Until there is something that does unambiguously define those issues as going against Cruz, HE IS eligible to be POTUS.
The Supreme Court has unambiguously stated:
“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
hilarious. whatever.
might as well let arnold run. at least he’s run a successful business
Except he's not pacing anywhere. He's standing still.
If Senator Cruz wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do something big and break out of the pack. And this needs to happen soon. Right now conservatives are coalescing behind Governor Walker. He's the one with momentum. He's the one getting press. He's the one making liberals nervous.
The time is now for conservatives to rally behind a single candidate, lest we have a repeat of last cycle where conservatives played musical chairs as the front runner only to have the second place guy sneak up from behind and claim the nomination.
Though I think she is just called grandmother.
I am sticking with Cruz, we still have a long time to sort things out
Yeah, we just need to wait and see who the GOPe give us and be happy about it!
Really?
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.Sounds like restrictions to me.
Nothing in the Constitution, it's amendments, US Law, or SCOTUS ruling unambiguously defines "Natural Born" as requiring 2 US Citizens at birth or requiring birth to take place in the US.
This is true — but if you appeal to a congressional act to claim that his mother could transmit citizenship to him, you are implicitly relying on a [normal] congressional act; but such an act cannot alter the Constitution, and as congress is only given the power to define a uniform rule of naturalization to rely upon this is to implicitly assert that he is a naturalized citizen which is contrary to the claim that he is natural born. (i.e. it is self contradictory.)
Until there is something that does unambiguously define those issues as going against Cruz, HE IS eligible to be POTUS.
Oh? And why shouldn't I take it to be the other way? That until there's something that unambiguously says otherwise that anyone who is not born in the US to two citizen parents is not a Natural Born Citizen? — I would much rather start with the most stringent interpretation than start with a loose one ant try to 'tighten' it up, especially considering how precedence has essentially been elevated to a superior position over constitutionality.
Please, please, please....let’s not go through this again. :>)
There were no good conservatives in 2012 and 2008, and Romney had the deck stacked in his favor, in all ways.
Too damn bad the SCOTUS decided to take a pass on this question. Duck it. Avoid it. Look the other way. Shirk their duty. Punt.
As a result, we no longer really have a firm idea what a citizen if the US actually is. I sort of think I am, but then so is little José born last night in LA to two illegal alien parents. Now, I think I am doubtless a "Natural Born Citizen," but then, so they tell me, are little José, young Wong, born on a shopping trip to San Francisco taken before his birth by his Chinese mom. Yes, citizenship is somewhat more plausible for Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz, not to mention Bobby Jindal. But what kind?
Under our COTUS, "consensus" is not law. Is it too much to ask that the SCOTUS consider defining Constitutional terms when properly framed appeals reach them?
To pass law about who must be naturalized, you must also decide who must not be. That is why the Constitution gives congress the authority to make any law necessary to implement the powers they have been granted under the Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power *** To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.***
I agree; that is a problem.
In cases like this, laws passed by Congress and/or court decisions usually form the basis upon which such definitions are made. If Congress’ definition is faulty, then someone would sue, take the case to the SCOTUS and it would then be incumbent upon the SCOTUS to settle the definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen”. It seems pretty clear, though, that the term has historically meant a person who is a citizen of the US from birth, and has not had to become one through a naturalization process.
Except here's a problem: Congress has power over naturalization. They could say that anyone born in the US, or to a single citizen whether here or abroad, is a citizen — and that would all be perfectly kosher under their power to define a uniform rule for naturalization, but a naturalized citizen is different from a Natural Born Citizen.
And, to complicate matters, consider how many open-borders types permeate congress [and the federal government in general] — this alone biases them to confuse the issue, because they are tied to their open-border NWO ideology there is little to no loyalty from them to the nation, Republican or Democrat, Legislative, Executive, or Judicial.
That is always an issue. If he doesn’t get the votes, then he doesn’t get the office. There is plenty of time to build an organization, and he is a brilliant man. Let’s see if God is behind Cruz’s efforts.
Really?
I seem to recall this; which, if you stick to a Congress can define
stance shows that both parents being citizens is a factor.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
“Trouble is that the Constitution doesn’t actually define what the term “natural born citizen” means.”
The Constitution also doesn’t actually define what the term “arms” means, as in the second amendment “..keep and bear arms...”
Does “arms” include the hands or not?
A resolution of congress is not LAW. Laws are recorded in Acts. The Naturalization Act of 1790: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
And how does that impact anything I've said?
I completely agree that congress can define who can be naturalized, and have said so.
The issue is that when one says that Cruz is a citizen and cites a congressional act, then they are citing laws respecting naturalization. They must be because this is the only sort of citizenship that congress has any authority over. And that means that they are implicitly claiming that he is a naturalized citizen, this contradicts the claim that he is eligible to be president (because that eligibility requires natural born citizenship, which is different than naturalization).
And?
That’s about naturalization, if you place Cruz’s citizenship under such an act you are implicitly calling him a naturalized citizen.
And a naturalized citizen is not eligible because that is not a natural born citizen.
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.