CNN: Why Ted Cruz Is Eligible To Be pPresident

CNN ^ | January 14, 2016

[Yosemitest]

(CNN)... If Cruz gets enough electoral votes this fall,
then Congress
and not the Supreme Court
should be the final legal judge of Cruz's eligibility.
The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says that
Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized
to refuse to count any electoral votes that Congress considers invalid.

Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear that
each house of Congress may "judge" whether
a would-be member of that house meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
... If a dispute arises ... the Constitution clearly says
the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here,
because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

[DannyTN]

I think states have a process.

I don't think they do. Or Obama would have been stopped.

The California Secretary of State had blocked candidates on eligibility in the past history. But the duty wasn't codified in law and the one serving during the last election refused to look into Obama.

And even if they do, they don't know what Natural Born Citizen means. They can pick and choose from a variety of opinions. But most secretary of states would rather avoid the issue.

[ConservativeDude]

If Amar is right, Congress could seat Vladimir Putin (in suitable disguise of course, so as to fool the people), and there is no remedy, no check.”

This is a true statement. I think the only check in this fact case is that the Reps are sworn to uphold the Constitution. (I know that the oath of office idea is quaint in 2015...).

On high crimes and misdemeanors, that is the standard for impeachment. It’s the...as it were..the natural born citizen analog to the impeachment clause. Over the years, people have tried to give it some sort of binding content. (Perhaps, also analogously, to the advice and consent of the Senate...but based upon....what?). This push for content has never really borne much fruit. It is basically what the House says it is, and their decision is unreviewable. It just goes to trial (and you are of course correct that the Senate’s sentences are prescribed).

I need to review the text of the Constitution itself. I am not sure one way or the other as to whether it makes Congress the sole judge. You think that it clearly doesn’t, and Amar thinks that it does....and you have made good points here. So I’ll try to get to that asap and wade back in. Thanks...

[Lurkinanloomin]

Sorry to disagree but simply being born a citizen makes every anchor baby and Winston Churchill eligible.

No divided loyalties was the intention.
They wanted no foreign influences on the Presidency.
It means born here of citizen parents.
No foreign parents.
No foreign births.
No other possibility of being anything other than a US citizen.
That’s what the founders meant by natural born citizen.

[RC one]

if statutory laws intervene, then that can be an exception to the general principles of common law.

I would argue that no simple law can act upon article II, section I, clause 5 however.

[Cboldt]

Balkin takes the opposite view from Amar, on the question of judicial reviewability. Both find Cruz to be NBC on the usual evasion of precedent and appeal to popular rhetoric on the verb "to naturalize" necessarily involving an oath of allegiance.

Just in case you want to read Amar's foil on the reviewability question.

[unlearner]

I hate to admit the highly-edited Communist News Network is right about something, but the issue probably is a “nonjusticiable political question” as they are claiming.

It is interesting that they are educating the public now rather than when this issue was in the forefront of Obama’s candidacy.

The courts still might issue a judgment anyway. And Congress would rightly be afraid to overrule the will of the people.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

I don’t think changes in the law of naturalization change natural born citizenship status. I think the correct reading of that provision is that you are either a citizen by operation of natural law, or you are a citizen by operation of statutory law. If you turn it around and say, who is that Congress would not have the power to deprive of citizenship, then you have your category of natural born citizens. Right now there’s some dispute about whether you could by Congressional act deny citizenship to anchor babies. If so, they are not natural born citizens. If not, they are natural born citizens. The classes of citizens that have never been disputed as citizens which Congress therefore could never deny citizenship to would be those born here of parents who are citizens. Children born of abroad to fathers who are citizens were probably originally part of that group as well. Mothers were by themselves capable of passing citizenship to their children until a Congressional statute was passed to that effect, so children born to U.S. citizen mothers and foreign fathers are probably not.

The rubber then hits the road as to whether it’s legitimate to “update” the original understanding from natural law to then also include the mother. Maybe, but I would put forward that the purpose was to prevent divided loyalties from birth, and as such, if the rule is to become gender neutral, it would have to read only children born abroad to two citizens.

[tumblindice]

Anyone who know what the Framers intended, will not confuse the term `natural born citizen’ with `citizen.’

Precisely. All natural born citizens are also citizens, but all citizens are not necessarily also natural born citizens. This is the point. Period.

Some here seem to be intentionally muddling that important distinction because they know it means that all a foreign-born candidate can hope for is citizenship. A citizen not a natural born citizen can serve in any job in this great country but two: president or vice-president.

This is the same argument we made seven years ago; arguing to the contrary can only be attributed to zealous partisanship.

Also (as some one else in this thread pointed out), it is pointless to cite a complex string of statutes and acts that support your position that a citizen is also a natural born citizen because the only way that Article 1, section 2 clause 5 can be changed is with a constitutional amendment.
We all know, or should know that ....

The only reason anyone would do that would be to throw as much as possible against the wall, hoping that something stuck.

It is painful to see the contortions of some here trying to square this circle by tormenting this ancient logical proof:
Socrates is an Athenian
All Athenians are Greeks
Socrates is Greek.

`But hold on! Maybe Socrates was a northern Athenian. And not all Athenians were Attic Greek, some were visitors, basement dwellers, so not all were Greek ... if Socrates was `Greek’ then so is my candidate, Alcibiades. And it isn’t fair that Cleo was from Sicily but allowed to run for counsel while my man cannot. Let me present the ruling of the Archons, subsection three of Article four, ii. 8392 where Pericles measured his foot and found that Socrates was actually ...’ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ockhams/Occam’s razor, or `the principle of parsimony’: “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected”.

There’s no reason to `reinvent the wheel’ here, unless one has an ulterior motive; we don’t need anyone to speak for the framers of the Constitution—they spoke for themselves.

The framers used two words: “natural born citizens’ and “citizens” in Article 2, Section 1, clause 5.

Every president since the first American president, Martin Van Buren, has been born on American soil: a natural born citizen; all of the presidents before him—citizens—were born in the American British colonies.

In that context, why is that? Why was every single American-British president and American president born on American soil?
Could it be that the distinction between “natural born citizens” and “citizens” was their understanding of the clause as well?

Don’t make yourselves crazy over this, FRiends. It’s not that complicated unless you make it, or allow it to be made complicated.

[jonrick46]

To really lay the argument about what is a “natural born citizen,” you have to give a long explanation, like you did so well. I know that it takes lots of work and I compliment you for your contribution.

From my understanding, the special status of citizenship given the term “natural born citizen,” was a way that the Framers of the Constitution prevented the infiltration of a foreign interest into the Presidency. Again, being a natural born citizen, as intended by the Framers of the Constitution, is a person who is born in the U.S. to TWO citizen parents. The Framers did not want a person in the highest office in the land with conflicting national allegiances. It is the prime reason for defining a “natural born citizen” in such strict terms. For example, a U.S. citizen parent and a Cuban citizen parent will cause conflicting national allegiances with their offspring. Let’s say JFK had a Cuban father and a American mother. What would have happened with the Cuban missile crisis if JFK thought it was OK for Cuba to have Soviet missiles—or (hint hint) North Korean missiles with EMP warheads?

You are correct. This is not rocket science.

[Yosemitest]

READ IT AGAIN.


1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it , too ( even though it DOES NOT APPLY) !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Well, let's review your IDIOTIC statement !

"... It means born here of citizen parents.
No foreign parents.
No foreign births.
No other possibility of being anything other than a US citizen.
That's what the founders meant by natural born citizen. ... "

From The Naturalization Act of 1790 that the FOUNDING FATHERS THEMSELVES WROTE :

... And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

You said "... It means born here of citizen parents."
... And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,shall be considered as natural born Citizens:" So much for the "here" part of YOUR LIE !

You said "... No foreign births." So much for the "foreign births" part of YOUR LIE !

You said "... It means born here of citizen parents. ... No other possibility of being anything other than a US citizen."
... That any Alien..., who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,...
... And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"
That whose fathers have NEVER been resident IN the United States allows Alien fathers who HAVE RESIDED IN the United States for a period of time, DESTROYS that "citizen parents. ... No other possibility of being anything other than a US citizen" part of YOUR LIE !

You can NOT get ANY OF IT CORRECT, CAN YOU ?

[philman_36]

WE'RE ALL RUTH BADER GINSBURG NOW
If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born."

Isn't USC 8, 1401 just such a law?

[Yosemitest]

You asked a great question:

"Could Cruz really win in Congress ?
I actually think not.
I think McConnell would sink him in a heartbeat."

TurtleHead McConnell might not, but the rest of the Senate, I'm not so sure about.
Power is a strange thing, and once "We the People" elect TED CRUZ, those Senators, especially the ones up for re-election, might not want an anti-Cruz vote on their own record.
The DemocrTATS will vote any way they can to add fuel to the fire.
But they too are sill up for re-election.
Those Senators whose private polls show that they're going to lose anyway, might not care.

[Yosemitest]

The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, is the ROOT of that LAW.
AND .... IT IS A LAW DEFINING the rules of CITIZENSHIP and NATURALIZATION.

So try again, LOSER !

"If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born.""

That's a very bad 'STRAW MAN' MIS-DIRECTION.
It isn't even close to what that law is.
A definition of the rules, is not the same as a RESOLUTION declaring a SPECIFIC PERSON a Citizen.

For REFERENCE. see:

111th Congress (2009-2010), S.RES.225.ATS, which states:
"Recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
... Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961; ...
Resolved,
That the Senate recognizes and celebrates the 50th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State."

and also 111th CONGRESS, 1st Session,H . RES . 593, which states:
"Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
... Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii; ...
Resolved,
That the House of Representatives recognizes and celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.

[philman_36]

So try again, LOSER !

I didn't write that, Annn Coulter did.
So Ann is a "LOSER" in your eyes?

[philman_36]

BTW, resolutions are not laws.

[philman_36]

IT IS A LAW DEFINING the rules of CITIZENSHIP and NATURALIZATION.

But for whom? Aliens, per chance, or citizens?

And if you reply citizens then you have to answer as to why citizens need a law for what they already have.

[ConservativeDude]

Yeah I know. After I posted that, I thought, that would be pretty revolutionary for them to pull that stunt. And seeing as the only thing that matters is re-election, they would likely go along. So I think you are probably right!

[2pets]

"The statute on the books on the day Cruz was born made him a citizen on that day."

-------------------------------------------------

No, it did not. The circumstances of Cruz's birth fail to meet any of the requirements of Public Law 414, Sec 301.

Subsection 7 would seem to be the one that applies to Cruz, but there's a problem with the "prior to" requirement. Two different terms: "prior to" and "at any time prior to" were used in Sec 301. They are not the same.

Looking at two different Sec 301 subsections:

(4) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States

(5) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person

Pages 713-74: Public Law 414, 1952

Subsection 7 uses the requirement "prior to." Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada prior to Cruz's birth. Words matter.

Cruz doesn't qualify for US citizenship at birth under the law in effect at the time. Cruz is neither a born citizen, nor a national born citizen.

[Cboldt]

You are citing the wrong statutory authority. Cruz's claim to US citizenship had to be adjudicated, wither for purposes of obtaining an FS-545, Certification of Birth Abroad, or for purposes of obtaining a US passport.

Somewhere in my posting history you'll find where I corrected another poster on this point - even produced a link to the relevant law after he called me a liar. Turns out he was just incompetent.

[2pets]

"You are citing the wrong statutory authority. Cruz's claim to US citizenship had to be adjudicated, wither for purposes of obtaining an FS-545"

----------------------------------------------

Is there any evidence that ever happened?

Furthermore, whoever would have adjudicated Cruz's citizenship status would have had to do so according to Public Law 414, Sec 301, and Like I said... the circumstances of Cruz's birth meet none of the requirements.