Posted on 01/11/2016 6:52:52 PM PST by PJBankard
Based on the current knowledge of Ted Cruz's citizenship, would Ted Cruz be considered eligible for the presidency at the time of our Founding Fathers (1788 - 1840).
Facts About Ted Cruz:
1) Mother was U.S. Citizen
2) Father was a foreign Citizen
3) Born in Foreign Country (Canada was a British Colony at the time)
4) Held Dual Citizenship
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.
The answer depends on whether you’re an originalist or not. If you are, then you try to determine what the founding fathers meant by the term ‘natural born citizen’, and whether they believed that the legal definition of ‘natural born citizen’ could be changed by statute. At the time the Constitution was ratified, the term ‘natural born citizen’ wouldn’t have applied to someone in Cruz’s situation. The founders themselves weren’t even technically considered natural born citizens of the United States, since the United States as a political entity didn’t even exist until they were well into adulthood. As a result a special ‘grandfather’ clause was included in Article II, to allow them to hold the office.
But even as an originalist, the question isn’t simply who would or wouldn’t have qualified to be a natural born citizen, but also, what was the basis for deciding this? Was ‘natural born citizen’ a term that referred to a self evident concept, defined by natural law, or did it simply mean ‘citizen at birth’ as defined by statue, as some have suggested? If the latter is the case, then Cruz would likely be considered a natural born citizen since Federal law at the time seems to grant automatic citizenship to someone in Cruz’s situation, even though 150 years earlier it wouldn’t have. If you believe that the term was defined by natural law, then it has a meaning that can not be altered by statute and is not equivalent to ‘citizen at birth’ and though Congress may have the right to change the definition of who qualifies to be a citizen, it doesn’t have the right to change the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’.
Which point of view would the founders have taken? I don’t know.
A few good resources to continue this discussion:
E. Vattel stated in 1758, as translated into English in 1797:
§ 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
ref.: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
A blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, "natural born Citizen" presidential eligibility clause:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Sample of essays: Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html
How many of the founding fathers were foreign born?
He would have been.>>>> not that many Hamilton was born and married in Nevis.
I built some inns that profited from the British Army occupationâ€.>> funny. point taken
it doesn’t have the right to change the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’.>>> well spoken. very much above my pay grade.
The majority of our founding father were born in a British Colony...
Including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin & John Hancock...plus many more...
If you go by the theory that natural born 'citizen' = non-naturalized 'citizen' and no more than that than both the Founders and us can be right. The Founders left the defining of 'citizen' to Congress, which has exercised its power through several redefinitions. 'Natural Born' would mean the same now as then, but 'citizen' would be constitutionally different.
Another way to argue Ted's point is to point out Hillary's first grandchild is eligible to be President, or will be in about 35 years. Her second grandchild should be likewise, even if Chelsea goes into premature labor and delivers outside the US. One grandkid eligible, one not, due to a fluke of timing and location, is not a winning argument. Not that I'm endorsing either spawn; their convicted felonious grandfather once was my congresscrook and the rest of their gene pool is similarly polluted.
You make a very good point.
Cruz would do a lot more good as a SC judge. And for longer, too. Let’s get him there.
Had Cruz been born in 1921 under the identical birth circumstances that he was born into in 1970, than he would not even have been a US citizen. The Cable Act, passed in 1922, allowed a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country, to transmit US citizenship onto the newborn child for the first time.
Article II, Section I clause 5, was ratified in 1791 with the rest of the constitution, long before the Cable Act.. Article I has not been modified by any subsequent amendment. Accordingly, the original intent and meaning of Article II stands absent any such constitutional amendment.
The purpose of Article II, Section I clause 5 was to prevent undue foreign influence on the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY thru a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The framers took their definition for NBC from Emmerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations, the 212th paragraph of which was quoted in its entirety in the 1814 Venus Merchantman SCOTUS decision. The Law of Nations is referred to in Article I of the constitution. That definition referred to an NBC as being born of two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation. That definition was cited in the 1868 case of Minor vs Hapersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US. De Vattel has been cited and accepted in dozens of SCOTUS and federal lower court rulings. The framers were patriarchs who believed that the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship of the father.
The authors of the 14th amendment, Senators Howard Jacob and Rep. Bingham also defined an NBC in similar terms.
Obama is the very embodiment and personification of the REASON that the framers put those protections into the constitution. By ignoring it, we have opened ourselves to the anti American and unconstitutional tyranny that Obama poses to our constitutional republic.
Ted Cruz is head and shoulders the best candidate in the race. He is a patriot who loves this country and its people. He is intellectually and philosophically superior to ANYONE else in the race. As much as I admire him, He CANNOT be considered a natural born citizen, as he is a citizen by statute. He was born with THREE countries (The US, Canada, and Cuba thru his father) having a legitimate claim on his allegiance from birth, whether he wanted it or not. I believe in the constitution and the rule of law, NOT in the cult of personality. We should not yield to the same dark impulses of expediency and delusion that gave us the tyrannical sociopathic usurper demagogue Obama.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies
George Washington was born in England you twit.
You figure he was ineligible too?
Damn but you are ignorant.
It is pathetic that so many have ignored the root of the question and stipulate ridiculous counter statements likeTed Cruz would have been a founding father, or that he would have been considered eligible due to being a citizen at the time of the ratification. I didn’t pose a fictitious birthdate as this irrelevant to the actual question. Giving the intent of the eligibility clause and the general time frame of when the founding father’s were alive after the Constitution was ratified, would Ted Cruz be considered eligible based on the facts stated.
I will not be responding to the content of any of your posts to me, either now or in the future. If you continue to post to me, some on Free Republic may conclude that you are a stalker.
Yeah I can see that. Principles only matter when it isn’t your candidate.
Yes but it did not apply at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
So when did the Constitution start applying?
"No weapon that is formed against me shall prosper (succeed); and every tongue that shall rise against me in judgment I shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of Me, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 54:17)
I will not be responding to the content of any of your posts to me, either now or in the future. If you continue to post to me, some on Free Republic may conclude that you are a stalker.
Yes, I seem to recall your having mentioned that.
I will not be responding to the content of any of your posts to me, either now or in the future. If you continue to post to me, some on Free Republic may conclude that you are a stalker.
What you do or don’t do is really rather inconsequential.
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.