RNC Committeewoman Claims Rubio and Cruz Both Ineligible for Presidency

A Republican National committeewoman from Nevada just proposed that not only is Cruz not eligible to be president, but GOP rival Marco Rubio isn't either.

Cruz's Canadian birthplace has been dragged through the press relentlessly over the last few weeks, but Rubio's birth to immigrant parents hasn't been discussed as much. Enter Diana Orrock, who not only serves the RNC, but is running for the Nevada state assembly.

She tweeted a link to an article by Devvy Kidd on conservative website News With Views. Kidd contends that because Rubio's parents were born elsewhere and weren't naturalized as citizens until he was four years old, he cannot run for the nation's highest office.

You said a lot of things,. both accurate and less than accurate.

This;

Cruz has claimed the he was made a natural born citizen by the 14th Amendment, which is famously a naturalization amendment.

is based on what?

Where has Cruz said that? Do you have a source for that? If from there on ensues reasoning reliant upon that point, then that point itself must be established beyond mere assertion.

Meanwhile, even if Senator Cruz has said such a thing (which I tend to doubt, but I could be wrong in that) he is incorrect, as shown in Rogers v. Bellei in which the majority included among their reasoning that Bellei, who was born abroad of a U.S. citizen mother, and non-U.S. citizen father, was at time of his birth a citizen surely enough, yet was not thus so "by the 14th Amendment", and was in fact outside of, and a citizen by exception to that Amendment, the exception arising from codification of law pertaining to and including definition of who was born a citizen --- among other additional considerations in regards to naturalization of those born not a citizen of the United States, thus alien requiring naturalization procedure in order to qualify for becoming a U.S. citizen, etc., etc.

Bellei challenged the constitutionality of the law, won that challenge in lower Courts, which to put it a bit loosely; that Congress was not sufficiently empowered to regulate the laws of the land regarding citizenship and naturalization beyond the 14th Amendment. That lower Court ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court. That Court, Justice Blackmun authoring majority opinion, joined in affirmation by 4 other Justices, ruled that changes which Congress has introduced to 8 U.S.C. where indeed Constitutional. Congress was empowered to regulate citizenship in their having placed additional conditions (residency requirements) upon those born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent, one of whom was at time of the child's birth not a U.S. citizen.

From that case under VI, within 6);

Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process. The plaintiff here would force the Congress to choose between unconditional conferment of United States citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. We are not convinced that the Constitution requires so rigid a choice.

From whichever side of the issues one attempted to argue Cruz's case, it appears erroneous (not that you did so in your own comment) for anyone to attempt to argue that; Senator Cruz was not a citizen of the United States, at birth, or if agreeing that he was, it was because he was from standpoint inclusive of 14th Amendment considerations.

The various attempts made by hosts of others to argue that he be a citizen by statute, and thus not "Constitutionally" a citizen would need to somehow get past this exception in methodology of acquiring citizenship at birth that is clearly written in 8 U.S.C 1801 (although that citizenship not beyond reach of Congress to have imposed residency requirement on both mother and child, in the instance of Bellei, as it would be similarly to Senator Cruz) which the Court examined and found to not be unconstitutional.

Blue Dragon, Cruz told us he is a natural born citizen because the first breath he took was aa a citizen. That statement is based upon an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which gave Congress control of naturalization mechanisms, U.S. Code 1801. It simply obviated the need for the party or parents to file paperwork to naturalize a foreigner or alien, as Cruz, Obama, Jindal, Haley, and, possibly, much as I believe a court might extend the definition which is now precedent, to include foreign born children of military citizens, for McCain.

For the record, a bill to do just what McCain needed was filed in February 2008 by Obama and his campaign co-chair Claire McCaskill. It was clearly intended to help avoid a battle should someone again challenge McCain, who fought law suits challenging his eligibility for the 2000 campaign, his legal fees paid in part by George Soros. Having McCain on the ticket made it extremely unlikely that any Republican would raise eligibility issues concerning Obama, who never claimed natural born citizenship. But it failed to pass out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and so Obama and McCaskill, joined by Hillary and Menendez and several others quickly brought out Senate Res 511, the “Senator John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen Resolution.”

Resolutions have no force of law, but how many do you assume know that. How many times have you heard some booming voice proclaim McCain was clearly eligible because the Senate said so! No, they didn’t. They said they thought it should be the case, and that a court might decide to amend the Constitution, or extend the meaning of the term confirmed in Minor v. Happersett. This writer thinks they should, but what probably happens is that eligibility amendments are killed by the party which doesn’t want to face the object of the amendment in a political race. So when Orin Hatch tried to amend Article II Section 1 to enable Schwarzenegger to run, his bill didn’t get very far in 2003. When the old communist Conyers tried twice to amend natural born citizen requirements, probably to make it easier for Obama, once in 2002 and again in 2004, he didn’t get very far.

Rogers v. Bellei is a 14th Amendment case. It only deals with naturalized citizenship. Some think it might apply to Cruz in that he might have become a senator without being a legal citizen. I’m not addressing that. It has nothing to do with being a natural born citizen. Cruz, like Obama, was born a citizen of another country. I don’t know Cuban law, but Obama himself told us, with the confidence that he was being protected by both political parties, that he is a natural born subject of the British Commonwealth, by England’s 1948 Nationality Act because his father was a British subject. That meant that the British could conscript him, and that he, unlike many British subjects, could become a Member of Parliament.

You are observing the remarkable corruption of both political parties, and sadly, Ted Cruz has proven that he is anything but the originalist that we just lost with the death of Judge Scalia. We have some very capable natural born citizens, one or two actually running for the presidency. I fear we are seeing another smoke job where few have the courage to tell the truth because their jobs may well be at risk if they do. Trump is Trump, and faces the issues. I might prefer Allen West, or Mike Lee, or Jerry Boykin, or Ben Carson, or even Carly Fiorina, for whom I once worked, but Cruz is a liar about the Constitution and nothing can make that acceptable, particularly since we’ve just ignored our Constitution by having ignored Obama’s ineligibility. We have experienced the foreign influence we were warned about in the first four Federalist Papers. Roberts should be impeached for administering an oath to a man who honestly told us that he didn’t consider the Constitution relevant, and whose father was an alien who hated our Constitution.

Ted Cruz didn’t bother to repudiate his Canadian citizenship until 2014. His Harvard Con. Law professor, Larry Tribe, certainly spent time, probably lots of it, addressing natural born citizenship. Larry honestly wants the freedom to reinterpret it as a liberal progressive, but he knows the law. That Ted didn’t bother to legally commit to having sole allegiance to our Constitution until 2014 by repudiating his Canadian citizenship is almost comical for someone representing himself as a constitutional conservative. He is playing games, and appears to have the arrogance to believe he can fool enough of the people for enough time to control the justice department, just as Obama did.

...Cruz told us he is a natural born citizen because the first breath he took was aa a citizen

That's not him saying it -- as you claimed. That had jumped out at me.

And your response, from the opening sentence doesn't work also for reasons I just took pains to explain.

Here's the hurdle (as far as I can tell) that the opening of the thesis you presented (I didn't bother reading all the rest -- it's got to be in "why bother" land if it follows that same line) is going to have to get over.

There is a difference between someone being born ---and then sometime after that be "made a citizen by statute" etc., and a person being born under already existing statutes which state that an individual shall be, "is" a citizen at birth, acquiring that status not from Act of Congress (by statute) but acquiring that status from a parent citizen under statutes which describe the conditions under which U.S. citizens pass their own citizenship unto their own progeny.

For purpose of further discussion, you do not have to agree with me in this -- but can you see the argument?

It simply obviated the need for the party or parents to file paperwork to naturalize a foreigner or alien, as Cruz, Obama, Jindal, Haley, and,

That's almost like hear-say. Someone said it -- but not as admissible in court, and not with force of law.

It's more like the changes in the laws, as those went along through series of changes, introduced contradictions and unevenness if looked upon through the historical record as one body of law.

Yet you are in the above italicized sentence attempting to impose the condition which was recognized as being the case -- an individual born overseas to a U.S. citizen be an alien until formally naturalized--- that was extant within the laws as those were between 1802 and 1855, and although the laws since then having undergone significant change and no longer include mention of persons born abroad to U.S. citizens as "aliens" at birth, are still trying to impose that statutory language!

What about how the law read in 1790? If we are to carry over past expressions of legal concept as hold-overs, and those concepts be unstated within newly adopted laws (as those laws have indeed fluctuated) then why not carry over from all the way back to 1790?

Because the laws were changed, that's why. And then, they were changed again. And again. And again.

Each time changes were introduced -- THAT was the law.

Under the laws as those were at time of Senator Cruz's own birth there was no inclusion (that I've been able to find thus far) of any statutory language which stated (or even suggested) that a person born in the circumstances which Cruz was born in, was ever considered anything other than a citizen -- at birth.

Cruz was not an alien at birth, as would have been the case had he been born between 1802 and 1855.

Please, read Rogers v. Bellei again if need be, and as intellectual exercise if nothing else, try to see if what I'm saying here can be supported, yet don't allow yourself to be too distracted and then zero in with laser focus (and blinders on) to wording from the majority opinion that mentioned such things as Bellei "had no right under the Constitution" to citizenship, for the Court there contradicted themselves to some degree having in wider context validated Congresses' authority to take regulatory action in regards to citizenship, and naturalization, under which conditions were described which did recognize Bellei's citizenship be from birth --- yet that same citizenship not immune from Congress writing law which placed additional residency requirements upon that same status of citizenship which was acquired from the mother whom was a U.S. citizen.

I've been over this already, yet you do not seem to "get it" while otherwise appearing to argue a whole bunch of other stuff as if that "stuff" could overwhelm what I've stated (but that "stuff" is incorrect at many places within the assorted assertions and explanations, yet those assertions need be true for your "case" to stand --- but since they are not, the argument you are presenting fails).

Next up(?) will be argued the old chapter heading which spoke of naturalization and immigration, I suppose.

Yet that heading itself was not the statutory language. The statutory language (from 1952) under that heading (the heading itself now changed) DID include stipulations and definitions of conditions for just who was a citizen, at birth.

That was included to more clearly delineate just who would not be required to undergo naturalization ---- by describing conditions under which there were to be exceptions for those born abroad (to whomever) and would need to undergo naturalization in order to become a citizen of the United States. Those persons described in the exceptions, again, were not subject to requiring naturalization.

Rogers v. Bellei is a 14th Amendment case. It only deals with naturalized citizenship.

Horsefeathers!

The majority opinion clearly stated that it was NOT a 14th Amendment case. They had to in order to distance themselves from that just far enough to allow Congress to introduce and pass/bring into effect changes within laws which described Bellei's precise circumstances of birth -- which circumstances WERE NOT addressed within the 14th Amendment!

Or else we can go back to the 1790 citizenship and naturalization statute, since other than what is found within the Constitution itself, the 1790 statutes were the original ones.

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.