Texas Republican Sen. Cruz eligible to be president should he decide to run

Fox News ^ | May 15, 2013 | Fox News Staff

[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.

[freekitty]

:)

[noinfringers2]

I also do not see Cruz eligible for POTUSA and will seek another candidate that meets what I have come to understand and believe to be the complete Constitutional intention as presented by the writings and discussions of the Founders. I do not see that Obama’s blatant disregard for Constitutional history along with his usurping enablers has set a Constitutional precedent. Instead what has been demonstrated is that 50+or- of the population for reasons of their own have shown how fragile the wording not the history/intention of our Constitution is when it comes to sustaining intended history. Obama as a usurper does not set a precedent unless the voting people of the US allow such to be repeated.

[Constitution 123]

“””””they mostly feared some royal dude from England or another European country coming over here with a ton of money and a vast retinue following him, and a bunch of royal hoopla, and hoopla-ing and buying his way into the Presidency.””””

What? This is why most here do not take you seriously.... Look at the way you conveniently frame the above.... you take a little truth, spice it with speculation and assumptions in an transparent attempt to support your weak argument.
I do agree that the framers feared foreign influence. Good thinking, especially in the context of our newly won independence. I conclude however it makes much more sense that our founding fathers wanted our President to be totally 100% loyal to the the concept of our new constitutional republic without having any foreign influence at all.... That is why their understanding of Natural Born Citizen .... meant born on us soil of 2 citizen parents. As a current example... Look at the Mexicans having children here on our soil and how those children are heavily influenced by their parent’s loyalties. If Natural Born Citizen meant what you say, our founding fathers were negligent and left the executive branch vulnerable to what we currently have with our usurper in chief. Our Founding fathers were a lot smarter than what you give them credit for.

[Jeff Winston]

What? This is why most here do not take you seriously.... Look at the way you conveniently frame the above.... you take a little truth, spice it with speculation and assumptions in an transparent attempt to support your weak argument.

I'm sorry. I thought you were making a reasonably sincere request. I didn't realize you were simply a committed birther, and had no desire to hear the truth.

Alexander Hamilton explained the clause:

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils."

Hamilton states specifically that the CHIEF PURPOSE was to prevent FOREIGN POWERS from coming over here and getting someone into the Presidency.

This isn't the case of a child born and raised in the US to normal, immigrant parents. It's the case of some rich or royal dude from Europe coming over and worming his way in.

So Alexander Hamilton agrees with me.

In the debates on how the President was to be chosen, James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," said that if the President were elected by the legislature:

"...the ministers of foreign powers would have and make use of, the opportunity to mix their intrigues & influence with the Election. Limited as the powers of the Executive are, it will be an object of great moment with the great rival powers of Europe who have American possessions, to have at the head of our Governmt a man attached to their respective politics and interests. No pains, nor perhaps experience, will be spared to gain from the Legislature an appointmt favorable to their wishes. Germany & Poland are witnesses of this danger. In the former, the election of the Head of Empire, till it became in a manner hereditary, interested all Europe, and was much influenced by foreign interference. In the latter, altho' the elected Magistrate has very little real power, his election has at all times produced the most eager interference of foreign princes, and has at length slid entirely into foreign hands."

There was more discussion of this sort, and agreement on the point. It is clear that they feared this kind of intrigue from foreign countries when it came to the Presidency.

That a child born to immigrant non-citizen parents might one day grow up to be President? Doesn't appear.

In talking about qualifications for members of the House of Representatives:

Mr. Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives. Foreign powers would intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expense to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services. He was not singular in these ideas. A great many of the most influential men in Massts reasoned in the same manner.

"Natives" always meant "people born in America."

As far as I can tell, no one has ever produced ANYONE except the Swiss writer Vattel who ever used the word to require citizen parents. (Vattel also had a bunch of other nutty ideas that we didn't adopt either, including that government should control religion, could force a man to sell almost all his possessions and dictate the price he received for them, should seize people by force who had valuable skills to prevent them from leaving the country, and that the right to keep and bear arms should be restricted to the elites and the military.)

In any event, once again the concern is people being "SENT" among us from foreign countries. No concern mentioned about US-born children of immigrants.

St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in 1803 that the natural born citizen clause is "a happy means of security against foreign influence", and that "The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."

Admission of "FOREIGNERS."

Nobody born on US soil was EVER called a "foreigner." I'm pretty sure you can't produce one single documentable instance of anyone born on US soil, at any time prior to 1850 (and probably at any time in history), of someone who was born on US soil, who was referred to by any major leader or legal expert of our country, as a "foreigner."

Foreigners were people born outside of the United States. And yes, I've studied that topic as well. So I know what I'm talking about.

So St. George Tucker, one of our most prominent early legal experts, agrees with me.

"Possibly this letter was motivated by distrust of Baron von Stuben, who had served valiantly in the Revolutionary forces, but whose subsequent loyalty was suspected by Jay. Another theory is that the Jay letter, and the resulting constitutional provision, responded to rumors that the convention was concocting a monarchy to be ruled by a foreign monarch."

No mention at all of the horror of the possibility that someone born in America of (gasp!) foreign parents might one day grow up to be President. Hmm. Charles Gordon agrees with me as well.

You claim that my statement that "they mostly feared some royal dude from England or another European country coming over here with a ton of money and a vast retinue following him, and a bunch of royal hoopla, and hoopla-ing and buying his way into the Presidency,"

takes "a little truth, spice[s] it with speculation and assumptions in an transparent attempt to support your weak argument.

Okay. I've quoted historical and scholarly sources that strongly support my claim that the Framers' main concern was foreigners (including foreign royalty) coming over here and worming their way into the Presidency, and NOT that some poor kid with immigrant parents who hadn't bothered to naturalize might some day grow up to be President.

They include James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Eldrige Gerry, and other Framers of the Constitution who took part in the discussion.

You say otherwise. Okay. It's your turn.

Produce the historical and scholarly sources that back up your position, or eat crow.

Incidentally, my "weak argument" is supported by literally every known authoritative source from early America prior to 1850.

Where's your list?

And don't give me David Ramsay, whose views on citizenship were voted down 36 to 1 by James Madison, half a dozen other Framers, and the rest of the first House of Representatives.

[Jeff Winston]

Oh, and...

They've been brought up on the idea that any American, however humbly born, may grow up to be President.

America Expects: A Travel Diary (1940)

The mother of any boy born in this country can, and usually does, think at some time or other that he might grow up to be President of the United States.

Journey in to America (1943)

On April 12, 1945, a prime tenet of U.S. democracy, that any boy can grow up to become President, was confirmed anew. Harry S. Truman, who was born in a Missouri farm family; whose formal education ended with high school; who never...

It Happened in 1945 (1946)

The popular belief is supposed to be that any boy in the U. S. may grow up to be President if only he is patient, plucky and persistent.

Negro Digest (1946)

I suppose it just goes to prove the saying, "Any boy can grow up to be President."

Arizona Cattlelog (1952)

Even the familiar American dream that any boy can become President...

A Creative Life for Your Children (1962)

And yet the homely old saw had proved to be true: in the United States any boy can grow up to be President.

The Atlantic (1963)

So I would remind each of you that any boy born in America has a chance to grow up and be President. It may happen to you.

Public Papers of the President of the United States (1966)

The other night after Ray Scherer's television broadcast, one of Mike Mansfield's colleagues and one of my Senate friends, said to me, “Well, all my life I heard that any boy born in America had a chance to grow up and be President..."

Source unclear, but dated 1966. Ray Scherer covered the White House from Truman to Gerald Ford. Mike Mansfield was in the Senate from 1953 to 1977.

That is what the myth says: since only ability counts, not mere rank and birth, "any boy in America can grow up to be President." (Yes, any boy. Though rank and birth were not supposed to count, sex always did.)

Nixon Agonistes: The Crisis of the Self-Made Man (1970)

Let's be honest here. Isn't what you actually heard, that any boy born in America could grow up to be President?

[freekitty]

Why would I want that? You are avoiding the question. Only trolls and people with things to hide do that.

[Constitution 123]

Listen Mr Winston.... I do not know who you are and if you are here with your own or someone elses agenda.... I already said that in my opinion, it makes no sense at all if the meaning of natural born citizen includes children of foreign citizen parents. and that is wherever they were born.
Many of the quotes you posted were general themes and not directly intended to define or even clarify the meaning of natural born citizen. Also, as I read them, many of the quotes supported my issues more than yours. But I am not going to grapple with you in the mud anymore. I am not big on quotes. I am big on principles and common sense.
I know this thread is about the eligibility of Cruz since he was born in Canada and his Father was Cuban. BUT since you brought up the Birther thing in a pejorative way, I will briefly address it.
The birther tag is used often to trivialize and suppress arguments of those on our side. It is very narrow and does not invite discussion of aspects outside the birthplace of Obummer. You calling me a birther as though it helps your argument only illuminates my suspicions regarding your agenda.

Tell us Mr Winston... Are you an Obama supporter? Did you vote for him? Both Times? Do you think he is doing a good Job?

Anyway I am done..... good Day

[GregNH]

This definition was taken from the comment section an ABC story linked at this thread. ABC News: Senator Ted Cruz And 7 Other Politicians At The Heart Of Birther Conspiracies
The original comment can be read here by MMaschin

I did some formatting to make it easier to read.

The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ can not possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?

There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?

There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.

1. Born in or out of a country.
2. Both parents are citizens.
3. One parent is a citizen.
4. Neither parent is a citizen.

The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

[jpsb]

He is not eligible, but if he runs he got my support.

[Uncle Sham]

"What I am asking is why or why didn’t they ask?"

Blackmail, death threats, collusion, it probably varies by congressman such that each thought it better to wait out an illegal term of office rather than enforce the constitution. This results in full-scale treason on the part of Congress. The courts have been just as treasonous with this issue. Since so many have taken the poison, no one will confront it as it brings everyone down, not just the usurper.

[RedHeeler]

Keen insight. You must be well born.

[MosesKnows]

I have good news for you

I wish you did have good news but good news without reality is not really news at all.

As I said, the Constitution is more important to me than political expediency.

widely recognized Constitutional authority in the country

Which constitutional authorities have been queried regarding Senator Cruz and what was their response?

Chief Justice John Marshall

Chief Justice John Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) stated, “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” “Citizen,” “naturalization” and “natural born Citizen” are ALL in the Original, unamended Constitution; therefore, none can mean the same thing.

How do you explain why the founders made the distinct reference to "natural born" in the case of the President but did not in the case of Congress?

[null and void]

Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born Americans.

Maybe.

But suppose John McCain had won?

What would be his proper response to any conflict in his native Panama?

Anything he did or didn't do would be subject to vicious political second-guessing based on the possibility of emotional ties to his place of birth.

That one singular office, The President of the United States, and the Commander in Chief of her Military, the most powerful military in the history of the world, simply must be free of any hint of divided loyalties, any hint.

[MosesKnows]

Please quote this section from the U.S. Constitution

I fear you have missed the intent of the Constitution altogether. The Constitution enumerates the powers of legislation but the word "enumerated" is not in the Constitution. The word "Democracy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The words "both parents" also do not appear in the Constitution.

However, the words “natural born Citizen” do appear.

Chief Justice John Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) stated, “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” “Citizen,” “naturalization” and “natural born Citizen” are ALL in the Original, unamended Constitution; therefore, none can mean the same thing.

Why did the framers of the Constitution make the distinct reference to "natural born" in the case of the President but not in the case of Congress?

[Ray76]

Still spouting your lies.

The holding in WKA: the SINGLE question of whether Wong was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was answered in the affirmative.

They could have chosen to say Wong was a natural born citizen, they chose not to.

[GregNH]

The left is endorsing Cruz to give Zippo cover for his ineligibility. If we allow it we are just as culpable.

[RegulatorCountry]

Jeff Winston, you've argued at length and continue to do so via USSC opinions of which you have no understanding. Wong Kim Ark was being denied citizenship by virtue of a treaty with China. Chinese in the US were to be excluded at the behest of the Chinese. Wong Kim Ark sued because he was denied reentry into the US due to his not being a citizen entitled to that right. Horace Gray essentially abrogated that treaty by applying the 14th Amendment in a way that was then novel, to find that wong Kim Ark was a citizen via operation of that Amendment.

Horace Gray cited Minor v. Happersett at length in that opinion. Virginia Minor had sued the state of Missouri for the right of suffrage as a 14th Amendment citizen. This aspect of claim was denied on the basis of her citizenship not having been affected at all by ratification of the 14A, she was in fact a natural born citizen and thus any claim under the 14A was irrelevant, it did not apply to her, her citizenship was never at question and no one at any time had attempted to deny it to her.

Chief Justice Waite went further to state that privileges and immunities were not extended in any way due to the passage of the 14A, it was a guaranty that citizenship itself could not be denied by the states, regarding naturalized or born citizens.

So, from Minor, we see that natural born citizens and 14th Amendment citizens are not synonymous. 14th Amendment citizens can be naturalized. Virginia Minor could not argue for extended rights or privileges under the operation of the 14th because it never applied to her as a natural born citizen.

And yet here you are, again (and again), arguing that Wong Kim Ark was magically transformed into a natural born citizen when he was not even born a citizen at all under the auspices of a treaty with China that excluded him from being under the jurisdiction of the US at birth.

None of these arguments you're making apply to the eligibility or the lack of it, of Ted Cruz, either. They apply to known or presumed weaknesses in any eligibility claims made on behalf of Barack Obama.

And here you are on Free Republic of all places, making those arguments that can only be on behalf of Barack Obama, as Wong Kim Ark certainly forms no precedent that might benefit any past or present Republican candidate.

Do you realize yet, that you really don't belong here, politically?

Apparently not, because you do go on.

[SvenMagnussen]

Natural born citizenship status is not held in perpetuity. Anyone of any age can move out of the U.S. and renounce their U.S. Citizenship and forfeit their natural born citizenship status.

The State Department has a policy directive it will not allow a parent to renounce the citizenship of a child. This does not preclude a minor living outside of the U.S. from renouncing. The parent of the minor must agree to a power of attorney naming an independent adult to speak for the minor as to a proposed renouncement of citizenship. Usually, a locally employed staff member of the U.S. Embassy is named as the person to make the case for the child in the power of attorney.

The child does not convince a Foreign Service Officer at the U.S. Embassy it is in the best interests of the child to renounce. It is up to the individual named in the power of attorney to make the case on behalf of the child.

A child issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, like Obama, has the option of electing to withdraw their Oath of Renunciation issued to them as a child within 6 months after they reach the age of majority. If they choose not to withdraw their Oath of Renunciation within this time frame, as Obama did, then they lose their natural born citizenship status forever.

Obama was in the Federal Foster Care system as an Indonesian National from 1971 to 1979. He was issued Certificate of Naturalization in 1983, well after he reached the age of majority. His Certificate of Naturalization makes him ineligible for POTUS and not his place of birth.

[JCBreckenridge]

We do this, we lose all credibility on this issue. Sorry. it’s been widely understood the requirements for the presidency include being born in the United States of America.

I love Cruz as my senator. I would not vote for him as president for precisely this reason. I don’t see ‘convenience’ as a good reason to toss aside the constitution.

[Jeff Winston]

Why would I want that? You are avoiding the question. Only trolls and people with things to hide do that.

Oh. So I'm supposed to post my personal information to you, a total stranger who seems to dislike me simply because I post the truth on the internet? Really?

Give me a break. Go stalk somebody else.