Posted on 05/18/2013 7:52:44 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada but is qualified to become president should he mount a campaign in 2016 or beyond.
Cruz was born in Calgary, and his father is from Cuba. But the Republican senator’s mother is from the first state of Delaware, which appears to settle the issue.
Government officials didn’t exactly have to scramble for the information amid speculation the firebrand freshman senator was contemplating a presidential run and might be ineligible, considering similar questions about President Obama’s birth prompted the Congressional Research Office to compile a 2009 report to try to resolve the issue.
The 14-page report by the non-partisan office’s legislative attorney Jack Maskell essentially states the Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be president: one must be at least 35, a resident within the United States for 14 years and a “natural born citizen.”
The report states "the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including … those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements."
However, Maskell points out in an expanded, Nov. 2011 memorandum “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”
Cruz has excited the Republican Party’s conservative base during his first five months in the Senate – while annoying moderates – by opposing everything from Obama Cabinet nominations to the bipartisan Senate immigration bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If Palin wins nomination and then goes on to win presidency in 2016, that would be the most exciting election news of my years as US citizen since 1970. But my head says it won’t happen.
“Here’s a link to ...”
Thanks for looking that up.
The Congressional Research Service report gives a detailed legal view of the term, with lots of references to relevant case law. What I’m going to post will give more of a historical view. The two are in harmony, and between the two, there is tons of authority.
Glad to help.
Not so.
There are people who have committed murder and got away with doing so. This didn't make murder legal. The only way to discard the natural born citizen requirement is through the amendment process.
According to the Twentieth Amendment, section three, a President-elect must prove he is eligible to serve or Congress is charged with naming a replacement. This did not occur as Congress avoided their duty and we thus have a usurper in the White House.
Why are you linking to a copy of a PDF with text formatting errors on Scribd, instead of linking directly to the document database of the Congressional Research Service, http://www.opencrs.com?
On second thought, you are probably right.
If Cruz looks likely to get nominated, the Left will suddenly discover the NBC clause and demand its enforcement.
Happy now?
That was the first source for the document that came up under a google search. Thanks to you and Jeff Winston for the additional links.
Sounds like many freepers and FOX news junkies never learned in basic civics class in junior years that one has to be born ON U.S. SOIL to be President. It’s not that complicated. It’s called Natural Born Citizen, unique requirement for the Presidency. Don’t think it matters? Take it up with the Constitution. Maybe we should get rid of several amendments because “I don’t think it matters.”
The dumbing down and lying of our culture is being done by power craving fanatics and the propaganda ministry of kool-aid. It’s unfortunate Sarah Palin or the conservative talking heads in radio would never mention McCain’s ineligibility, being born in Panama. Resolution 511 is toilet paper. It means officially jack squat, but it signaled to the mainstream libby media (who was reporting McCain’s ineligibility) that the entire Congress wasn’t going to make an issue of the trivial Natural Born Citizenship clause or that pesky Constitution, so proceed and dish out the kool-aid for the masses. It’s how Roger Calero born in Nicaragua got on the 2008 Pres. ballot, it’s how Zero the usurping fraud squats in the White Hut never showing simple birth documentation, other than a blatant forgery abstract from another boring laughable press conference filled with lies and the usual quips “carnival barkers” similar to how Benghazi scandal “sideshow”.
That’s the problem on both sides of the political aisle, for the people who sway their pom-poms nodding their heads for talking points they get from the constituency and media hacks rather than objective critical analysis and use your friggin brain. It’s what they are not telling you.
Agree.
Standby for: Spin, spin, spin/Conjecture/Misinterpretation/Misquote/False references/Unsupported Opinion/Attack & and attack back/And just plain BS.
Hopefully though, factual data can be accumulated that will lead to a way forward, even if the resolution will require a successful constitutional amendment. I believe the citizens will provide what is necessary.
Deport, my Freeper friend, this occurred in 1875, Minor versus Happersett.
OK, Game on. You post it and give us your explanation.
"or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,"
I can explain it if need be.
Then I have good news for you: Ted Cruz is eligible to run for and be elected President.
I used to say that he was "almost certainly" eligible to the Presidency. As of today, I'm even dropping that small qualifier.
Ted Cruz is Constitutionally eligible.
What do I base this on?
First, there doesn't seem to be even one prominent, widely recognized Constitutional authority in the country (and no, Herb Titus doesn't count) who says that Ted Cruz isn't eligible. So the opinion that Cruz is eligible seems to be pretty much unanimous.
Second, there is a lot of historical evidence that indicates that "natural born citizen" simply meant "citizen by birth," and that the Founders intended for people like Ted Cruz to be eligible.
Third (and this is what has made the difference) Chief Justice John Marshall, who was an important Founder of our Republic in addition to his 3-1/2 decades as Chief Justice, and who CERTAINLY would have known what the term meant, seems to have been fully in agreement that the term simply meant a "citizen by birth."
Incidentally, I have compiled quotes of what our best early legal authorities said about the meaning of "natural born citizen," which I will post after this post.
Somebody said this on FR long time ago, to wit: if 0bama is a NBC, anybody is an NBC. Heck, SCOTUS won't even take the case.
They won't take the case because the issue was settled in 1898, in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Doesn't it seem odd that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear a case on such an important matter as whether it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents to make a "natural born citizen," if the matter were unresolved?
They won't take the case because it was settled more than a century ago.
What is the “weight of authority” that supports the idea that someone such as Senator Cruz is eligible to “be” President as satisfying the Natural Born Citizen requirement?
The CRS report (referenced above) is a good place to start from a legal point of view. My compilation of quotes from the best authorities of early America, below, is a good place to start from the historical point of view.
There actually isn’t any possibility for an individual born in the US with neither parent being US citizens, either, but authorities have been being very permissive and the perception is such.
It's not because authorities have been "permissive." It's because it never took citizen parents for someone born on US soil to be a natural born citizen. This has been said again and again by authority after authority in history. See below.
What about all the arguments that have been made, such as: "The United States Supreme Court in MINOR v, HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) clarified the definition of NATURAL BORN that a child born of two U.S. Citizens is a Natural Born citizen.
Almost all arguments put forth by birthers are historical and legal NONSENSE. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, they never said you had to have citizen parents. They only said that if you had both, it was certain that you were a natural born citizen. Their comment regarding children of non-citizens was simply a non-authoritative side comment (dicta) unrelated to the case at hand, and even if it had had any authority, it would've been overruled by the decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In addition to the compilation of quotes from our best early legal authorities, I have a running list of at least around 40 fallacious arguments made by birthers. It includes just about all of the major arguments they've ever made, and explains why each one is fallacious.
There are a few - a VERY few - people in history who actually did agree with the birthers. But in every case, they were overruled or contradicted by others of equal or (almost always) greater authority and expertise in the law.
Next, I will post the updated list of quotes relevant to natural born citizenship from early American authorities.
Exactly. A President-Elect “qualifies” by being alive when his electoral votes are counted and certified and remaining alive and healthy enough to take the Oath of Office on Inauguration Day.
Where Congress might conceivably find a living President-Elect as having “failed to qualify” is via at least one Senator and one Representative submitting written objections to the President of the Senate (the Vice President) at the Joint Session of Congress that is convened to count and certify the votes of the Electors. If there are the two written objections, the counting and certifying of Electoral votes is suspended and both Houses meet in their separate chambers to consider and vote on the objections, one vote per state delegation.
No one submitted objections to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes to Dick Cheney in 2008 or to Joe Biden in 2012 and that could have happened.
The Twelfth Amendment states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “shall be the President.” There is no more President-Elect after noon on the third Monday in January.
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.