Replies

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ? TED CRUZ WAS BORN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN !

"An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":

... The Constitution, federal law, and the historical understanding of the Framers, as well as prior British legal traditions and law, all support this view. In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, two former U.S. Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement (who served under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (who served under President Barack Obama) stated: 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. 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. Thus, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be eligible to run for presidentbecause the Austrian native had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen. Certainly the Framers of the Constitution held this view of “natural born” citizen. They had a deep understanding of British common law and applied its precepts, particularly as explained in Blackstone’s Commentaries, throughout the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama (1888) recognized that“the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact thatits provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice. One of those precepts of British law wasthat children born to British citizens anywhere in the world,even outside the dominions of the British Empire, were “natural born” citizens of the Empire who owed their allegiance to the Crown. This historical understanding is explained in great detail by the Supreme Court in a well-known 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The First Congress, which included many of the Framers of the Constitution, codified this view of a natural born citizen. A mere three years after the Constitution was drafted, they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which specified that the children of U.S. citizens born“out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” The modern version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401. It contains a list of all individuals who are considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (g) includes: A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970; his mother, who was a U.S. citizen by birth from Delaware, was in her 30s at the time. She met Cruz’s father, who was born in Cuba, as a student at Rice University. These facts show thatCruz’s family background clearly meets the standard set out in the federal statute for being a natural born citizen who did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen.; That was also the case for Senator Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state, and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico. The bottom line is that Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice. The same is true of my wife, who was born in Manila.Her father, whose family had been in America since shortly after the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts, was temporarily working abroad for an American company—just like Ted Cruz’s father. My wife is not likely to run for president, but there is no question that she—like Ted Cruz, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain—is eligible to be president and to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Hans A. von Spakovsky is a a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department lawyer. He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”(Encounter 2012) and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside 2014).

In 1969 Pinckney McElwee uncovered evidence in the House Committee notes from 1795 which indicate that the reason the reference to natural born citizen (NBC), included in the 1790 Naturalization Act, but entirely removed from the 1795 Naturalization Act, was that people would wrongly infer that that Act was actually intending that those born overseas outside the country were to become natural born citizens. Clearly Madison was not wanting to make natural born citizens of the children born overseas to American parents.

Here is the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act:
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

1795 Naturalization Act text change:
, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.

James Madison had written "shall be considered as natural born citizens" He did not say, shall be as natural born citizens. In the revised act that abolished the first he corrected his own text to make it less susceptible to misinterpretation.

Both Matthew Spalding and Jack Maskell, allegedly American history scholars, each conspicuously failed to address the fact that the 1795 Naturalization Act entirely repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act, and was a near-verbatim repeat of that Act, except entirely removing the reference to “natural born citizen”. The failure to address this conflict with their arguments strongly indicates an agenda in disregard of fact.

In 1795, James Madison himself actually expressed concern that some might erroneously infer, from the 1790 Act, that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens. McElwee indicates:

Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.

(McElwee, Natural Born Citizen, 1967, Page 10)

I pity you Yosemitest, for not believing the words of James Madison, the author of the US Constitution. If this is ever judged by our Congress, they will refer back to the contemporaneous notes of the Third Congress. The fact that I know this, and multiple hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of voters know this, dooms the brash and malicious candidacy of Ted Cruz.

Hint: If they don't know it now, the Democrats will make sure everyone knows it by election day!