Posted on 08/26/2013 1:51:55 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
This article appeared on Daily Caller on August 26, 2013.
As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas — love him or hate him — continues to stride across the national stage. With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret: Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
(Full disclosure: I’m Canadian myself, with a green card. Also, Cruz has been a friend since his days representing Texas before the Supreme Court.)
But does that mean that Cruz’s presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards, having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate?
No, actually, and it’s not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency. (The Founding Fathers didn’t want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)
What’s a “natural born citizen”? The Constitution doesn’t say, but the Framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.
There’s no ideological debate here: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson — who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases — co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain’s eligibility. Recall that McCain — lately one of Cruz’s chief antagonists — was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.
In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth — as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later (“naturalizes”) or who isn’t a citizen at all — can be president.
So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.
That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 — Cruz was born in 1970 — someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.
So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there’s no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn’t have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn’t have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else. (For those born since 1986, by the way, the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years, at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)
In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldn’t be in doubt. As Tribe and Olson said about McCain — and could’ve said about Obama, or the Mexico-born George Romney, or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater — Cruz “is certainly not the hypothetical ‘foreigner’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.”
Yeah, right. All laws are meaningless, and I bet you didn’t even read the post!
Taking apart the law is the first step to taking away everyone’s constitutional liberties. But then you don’t care about that, do you?
The First Amendment is under assault at this moment by atheists and the radical homosexual lobby, and the Second Amendment will be voided by BHO2 (who is a foreigner) and the United Nations. But then it’s just crap, isn’t it Johnny?
The man who calls himself Barak Hussein Obama II, and has referred to himself as “just a Jakarta street kid”, is a foreigner and Indonesian citizen. But I guess that’s okay for an American President, and worth allowing a repeat.
Who needs a constitution anyway! Hell, we’ll just ignore it. /sarc
Delbert Belton was beaten to death with flashlights by lawless thugs. That’s our future - anarchy - if we don’t start upholding the laws, all laws!
Your opinion on NCB isn't law, as much as want it to be. It's your long-winded, rehashed, repeated ad-nauseum opinion.
/johnny
Sure thing CatherineofAragon!
Thank you
A most excellent observation!
We are so easily played at the point when we forget what was once common knowledge.
We just needed the right distraction. Just like with obama...
Well I do not know why they turned these cases away.... I expect they did not want to deal with such a hot potato. but because, they have not given a reason, we can only speculate. However, one thing is for sure. Standing is a legal issue and in my opinion, often abused. Eligibility, is a constitutional issue that in my opinion, needs to be addressed.... Not ignored.
Your opinion on NCB isn't law, as much as want it to be. It's your long-winded, rehashed, repeated ad-nauseum opinion.He's right SatinDoll.
People who know what theyÂ’re talking about donÂ’t need PowerPoint.
At last—a well-taken point, “pal” ;) Better get yer PowerPoint.
Please post the relevant Supreme Court ruling that codifies your position that requires Potential POTUSes to have 2 parents with US Citizenship.
It occurs to me that we are on the same side here... I’m just a bit more cynical.
We, who to have followed this issue since 2008 all know the arguments..... You, asking posters to repeat these arguments is a waste of time.... just review all the posts here since Obummer ran the first time. and educate yourself instead of asking stupid questions.
/johnny
I explained it to you and I have no problem with you Lucy. I normally like your pings. Just did not care for this one. I don’t like seeing thinly disguised attacks on one of the brightest conservatives to come around in a long time. And it was an effort to smear the man. You may not have recognized it as such, but it was.
In effect, you are stating your opinion concerning what is constitutional, not what is legally considered constitution as of right now by US Law.
Should have been:
In effect, you are stating your opinion concerning what is constitutional, not what is legally considered constitutional as of right now by US Law.
Your link doesn't support your claim.
From the article:
Cruz’s mother told him if he wanted Canadian citizenship, he could pursue it, but he never did and Cruz said he thought that settled the matter.
NO You are wrong again.... The founders knew exactly what they meant when they authored it. They all agreed. Like I said, they debated every single word untill they agreed. I understand what they meant. It is very clear to me. BUT you think they intentionally made the meaning ambiguous? Jeesh
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.