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.

[Ray76]

“Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”. If a naturalization statute creates “natural born citizens” then there is no need for the Grandfather Clause, “citizen” would have sufficed.

[RegulatorCountry]

I've taken the existence of the 1790 Act as an indication that the Founders did not automatically assume children born abroad to parents who were citizens (or certainly at least the father) were not natural born citizens.

That the specific language of this Act pertaining to natural born citizens was subsequently removed and replaced in 1795 with just “citizens” is indicative of a problem of some sort with any sweeping definition of the term in application to children born abroad of citizen parents.

That most likely was due to foreign claims of sovereignty over children born in their territorial jurisdiction, in my opinion.

Others have pointed out that such an Act was legislative overreach, exceeding powers enumerated to the Legislature, which dealt with immigration and naturalization only.

All involved agree that the one thing natural born citizens aren't, is naturalized, from the most liberal Democrat interpretation to the most restrictive conservative interpretation.

[Ray76]

That most likely was due to foreign claims of sovereignty over children born in their territorial jurisdiction, in my opinion.

Enter the Law of Nations.

[RegulatorCountry]

Yes, citizenship is of it's very nature international, being the distinction between people under differing sovereignties and jurisdictions internationally. Then, you have the initial confederation of independent States under the Articles, with varying laws and definitions of citizenship within *their* respective jurisdictions. Who or what dealt with the formation of a Republic from various States in the Founding era? Emerich de Vattel and The Law Of Nations primarily, and others to a lesser extent, with Marcus Tullius Cicero writing upon the Roman Republic being apparently popular with a few.

[highball]

“Why do people rush to the latest golly, gee wiz, new kid on the block, Conservative and promote push for a Presidential run? Are we that surfeit of leaders?”

Yes, actually. Sad as that is.

[AmericanVictory]

Here is what Story held to make clear that political rights, such as citizenship, are not decided by the common law but rather by the law of nations.

The incapacities of femes covert, provided by the common law, apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.

In Inglis Story's opinion was not the majority opinion.

Here is something from that majority opinion that indicates that they did not reach the issue of citizenship:

This question as here presented does not call upon the Court for an opinion upon the broad doctrine of allegiance and the right of expatriation under a settled and unchanged state of society and government. But to decide what are the rights of the individuals composing that society, and living under the protection of that government when a revolution occurs, a dismemberment takes place, new governments are formed, and new relations between the government and the people are established

So the question of citizenship and what law governs it was not reached by the majority opinion in Inglis

[Mr. K]

"I do think that most of the forgery ones are BS too. "

Then you are too stupid to be here

[Jeff Winston]

Then you are too stupid to be here

Either that, or I know more about it than you do.

[DiogenesLamp]

The grandfather clause was passed for the sake of men like James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton. By the doctrine of citizenship in force and in law, people like George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson - those guys were all natural born citizens.

Dr. Conspiracy's idiot theory. Washington was a "Natural born Subject" Of King George III. It was to this man to whom Washington owed allegiance when he was born.

.

The country they created in 1776 was artificial. It had never existed before. They effectively naturalized themselves into this new country by the Declaration of Independence.

See, this is one of the big clanging bells that signals that your theory is a crackpot one. All of the Founders and legal experts had to be "wrong" for a bunch of keyboard commandos on the internet to be right.

And the need to believe that Washington was a "natural born citizen" to two different governments ought to be a clanging bell for you, but of course you never seem to know for whom the bell tolls.

William Rawle, close friend of Washington, Franklin and other Framers. Well, he was a liar when it came to citizenship. Yes, some moron actually said that.

I won't mention his name, but his initials are "DiogenesLamp."

I haven't actually solidified my position on this. It's a toss up between Rawle being Deluded (in the Manner of Jeff Winston) or Blatantly lying. (In the Manner of Jeff Winston.) The evidence is pretty indicative that Rawle substituted his own desired beliefs for that of Constitutional intent.

Rawle was the LEADER of the Abolition movement in Pennsylvania. Vattel is deadly to his argument, and it is becoming apparent why he favored English law. It was the only body of law which secures his ultimate goal of Abolishing slavery.

Funny thing. I've been pointing out to you over and over again that Slavery is a violation of English Common law regarding "Subjects." I keep mentioning that it was a contradiction of your theory, and you keep hand waving it away. Well guess what? Rawle made this exact argument. As a matter of fact, it was central to his efforts on behalf of abolition.

Rawle NEEDED English law to apply. So he simply said that it did. By 1829,(When he published his book) most people who would have contradicted him were dead.

[DiogenesLamp]

Winston’s job is to make these threads “unreadable” to the point of ignoring them altogether. Just make like his post are invisible and pay no attention to them.

Very good advice, but the danger exists that he will snare the gullible if we do not counter his drivel.

[DiogenesLamp]

I mean, you would think that if you actually had a case, you could get at least ONE significant Constitutional foundation, like the Heritage Foundation or National Review, to sign on?

It doesn't matter how many times you show Jeff he is wrong, He just comes back and repeats the same wrong claim.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship

[DiogenesLamp]

You know, the Heritage Foundation? "Whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense?

Yeah, you know, the Heritage Foundation.

From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

Legal Memorandum #18
This is a Legal Memorandum On Legal Issues From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
By John C. Eastman
March 30, 2006

It is today routinely believed that under the Citi­zenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain U.S. citizen­ship. However strong this commonly believed inter­pretation might appear, it is incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause (particularly as informed by the debate surrounding its adoption), but also with the political theory of the American Founding.

It is time for Congress to reassert its plenary authority and make clear, by resolution, its view that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase of the Citizen­ship Clause has meaning of fundamental importance to the naturalization policy of the nation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Bookmark

[DiogenesLamp]

Your reply is not logical and does not answer my inquiry. You may be able to tell me of a case and imply from it but it does not overturn what he actually said in Shanks v. Dupont. Given what he said specifically in Shanks, it is does not logically follow that within months he overturned his own decision by the strained implication that you assert. You seem to be engaged in the tactic of attacking to divert rather than answering the question.

Jeff is all about sowing confusion and misdirection. His stock in trade are fallacy arguments and he simply repeats them ad nausea. He might not be employed by the left, but he certainly carries water for them.

[sometime lurker]

So was the 1790 Naturalization Act. There are several, which deal with naturalization and also what qualifies for natural born or birthright citizenship. If you check the Congressional Annals on the debate in 1790, it mostly centers on naturalization terms, but has a brief reference on page 1159 "the case of children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III."

[MMaschin]

'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.

What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable".

The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.

The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320? CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens at birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, these are not really 'Citizens at birth', the are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz 'spokespeople' will always say 'by birth'), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.

That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not like that. Not without all of them being roaring drunk.

Jeff, they don't agree with you. Despite how many times you keep repeating your claim, the founders do not agree with your position. British Subject law is contrary to the Principle of Independence. Subjects were not permitted to expatriate themselves.

English Subject law is a contradiction of our most fundamental founding Principle. Even Rawle said so.

William Rawle:

By the common law, expatriation is not barely not permitted, but it is distinctly prohibited. The maxim of that law is, nemo potest exuere patriam.* By the common law, allegiance is perpetual- Bracton, Coke, Hale, Foster, and Blackstone consider this as a fundamental principle of that law.

.

*"nemo potest exuere patriam" means "no man can expatriate."

[DiogenesLamp]

And YOU do?? YOU know more about the Constitution than George Washington and the entire First Congress?

This is a common Jeff Tactic. He portrays any disagreement with HIM as being a disagreement with the Founders. This is deceitful and unsupportable, but Jeff does this ALL THE TIME.

No Jeff, it is YOU who disagrees with the founders. They believed in Freedom, not Land Bondage subjugation to a Monarch.

[Huskerfan44]

Revisit.
“Standby for: Spin, spin, spin/Conjecture/Misinterpretation/Misquote/False references/Unsupported Opinion/Attack & and attack back/And just plain BS.”

Good projection.

“factual data can be accumulated”

Some progress.

[DiogenesLamp]

It's not in error. They knew what they were doing.

Absolutely. They prohibited Foreign Fathers, didn't they? Anyone with a Foreign Father is automatically disqualified.

So did Ted Cruz have a foreign father? Would he have been excluded under the "Naturalization" act of 1790?

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: