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.”
You make me think.... and here is what I conclude.... Because we are between a rock and a hard place, in order to save the union and have the tea party revolution you speak of, I could see how we may need to temporally compromise certain constitutional principles.... like eligibility.
In order for me to support something as drastic as this, it would have to be done very transparently and only for a limited time.
However, for me, a better strategy could be for Cruz to openly acknowledge his ineligibility and thereby immiediatly put Obummer on the defensive. Then, he could maintain a strong leadership role by vigorously promoting another constitutionally qualified candidate like Sarah Palin. He could participate in the revolution by serving as senate leader or something like that.
But Jim you made me think outside my comfort zone and consider things I had not before.
"""Matters of common sense should need no adjudication"""
Yep, I strongly agree. Especially with the key word "should"
Doesn’t say anything about who is NOT a citizen or NOT with 2 citizen parents. It addresses the case of a baby born in the US with 2 citizen parents. It says that child is obviously a natural born citizen. In fact, the very effort to point out that such a case is accepted by everyone is itself evidence that it wasn’t addressing the exceptions, but was instead addressing the obvious.
Actually, BD, FreeReign must have tired of your obtuse drivel of “liar or stupid”, because he showed you straight out that your link supposedly proving Cruz’s mother told him he had Canadian citizenship SAID NO SUCH THING. The link said his mother told him he could pursue Canadian citizenship if he chose to. It did not say she told him he had it.
I have to believe you can read but chose not to admit what your own claimed source actually says and means, and it clearly does not support your “liar or stupid” claim but says something quite different, as FreeReign called to your attention.
Your response to that was basically a “Hillary moment” of what difference does it make, FreeReign? And to repeat the liar or stupid non-option.
But what would anyone of us expect of you and your little tag mates after the accusation that Rafael is a Castro lover because he fought Cuban dictator Bautista when Castro was fighting him, before Fidel won and suddenly declared a Communist dictatorship in Cuba.
Meanwhile the supposedly Castro loving and Communist loving Rafael Cruz had left Cuba for America and made his life as a refugee here, eventually becoming an American citizen by naturalization.
Raising a son who quotes his dad on FREEDOM and who is fighting for our FREEDOMS now that are being ripped away from us.
What an ODD thing for a Commie loving Castro loving man to do, eh, BD? When all he had to do was stay in Cuba and support Bautista’s replacement dictator, Fidel, and all of the wonders of Communism and its “workers paradise”.
Instead he chose America, for FREEDOM, and raised a son in his image.
Odd, truly odd. Actually, it only seems odd because of your lies. It wasn’t odd at all that he chose what he chose, given his valuing FREEDOM above everything and that America was where he found it. And now his son is fighting to preserve the FREEDOM we are losing here, and have almost completely lost.
Jim Robinson just told you that he will be supporting Ted Cruz if Ted does run for President.
How THICK, and NASTY, and CLUELESS does one have to be to come here and do what you have done? And directly into the face of the provider of this site for FREEDOM.
I don’t know who you really are, but I know who you are acting like, for sure.
“””according to the top authorities of the early United States who knew exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by “natural born citizen.”
“It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’ It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country.”
- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1833)
The above quote was part of Bayard’s discussion of the qualifications to be President, and Presidential eligibility.
Bayard’s exposition of the Constitution was read and approved by the Great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and by the famous Chancellor James Kent, as well as other legal experts of the early United States.
Bayard himself was the grandson of Richard Bassett, United States Senator #1 and one of the 39 Delegates who Signed the Constitution.
And Bayard’s FATHER (who is also credited with brokering the deal that made Thomas Jefferson our 3rd President)was known to his peers in Congress as “HIGH PRIEST OF THE CONSTITUTION.”
Not one single person ever said that James Bayard was wrong about his understanding of what “natural born citizen” meant.”””
***************************************************
SO glad you quoted Bayard as an expert, Jeff. That should make it so much easier for you to understand that even those born in the U.S. to an ALIEN father, were NOT U.S. citizens by birth:
U.S. Secretary of State Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was NOT born a U.S. citizen because Greisser’s father was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser’s birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth ‘SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER,’ therefore NOT “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” within the meaning of the Constitution.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wdgxAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
If one born within the U.S. to an alien father isn’t even a U.S. citizen by birth, how can one born outside the U.S. to an alien father be a “natural born citizen?”
BOTH Obama and Cruz are Constitutionally INELIGIBLE due to their fathers’ status as aliens at the time of Obama’s and Cruz’s birth.
Plain as day.
Is that his sister?
Any Canadian citizen with a Canadian BC is fine by me.
I’m getting a Canadian Maple leaf for the front of my house.
After we elected a communist from Indonesia, I took the stars and stripes down. A Canadian is looking pretty damn good and I want to fly a flag again.
Go Maple Leafs!!!
“Sorry (sincerely sorry) but the good Senator “Ted” Cruz’s daddy was not an American citizen when “Ted” was born.”
Barack Obama, Jr had a daddy too.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com
Your opinion, on whether Cruz will be President. And your opinion counts for little.
/johnny
Then you undoubtedly came across this gem spoken by Mr. Madison but chose to ignore it: "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States;"
This was spoken by James Madison on 22 May 1789. Source here: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
Just watched his interview with Candy Crowley. If looks could kill — !
And while he’s about the best we’ve got, he’s still yielding a lot of ground. Does pandering come naturally to every politician? She asks about the poor people, what do they do to afford health care, and he recites the tired old “vulnerable people” list: Hispanics, African Americans, single moms...”I don’t think that’s fair, I don’t think that’s right!”
Well, I don’t think that’s effective.
He’s not making a good case for terminating obamacare, and he’s implying the Republicans have a better plan.
I’d rather hear him say the GOP has no plan, and should have no plan, and here’s WHY!
There seem to be a number of professional pro-Obama, anti-Cruz trolls around lately.
Cruz scares the crap out of the Obots, because they know he CAN win.
Interesting turn of phrase, given Senator Cruz's last name is Cross (Eng.) :)
Thanks for making my point. Speaking for the Framers, Madison clearly stated that citizenship derives from the blood and the soil.
There you go... Cruz is my favorite for 2016 at this point. I hope the folks pushing the foreign nonsense shut the F U.
Yes, blood of an American when born overseas and soil of any parent in the U.S. Get wise!
OK so let's just kind of try to flesh this out a little.
On what date was Eleanor born in Delaware? So we can figure out on what date she was 14; so we can figure out whether or not she meets the five years after 14 requirement.
And where did Eleanor live before she was 14? So we can figure out if she also meets the ten year rule.
And where did she live between the date of her 14th birthday and the date of her 19th birthday? So we see how she meets the five year rule also.
We will know from her birth date whether or not she was 19 when Ted was born--my memory is that the answer to that question is affirmative but I am not sure.
And on what date was the five years after 14 effective--for children born after what date? In the footnotes to the Enrolled Bill, not in US Code Annotated unless you have an edition which includes the footnotes.
And on what date was the five years after 14 provision replaced (which it was)--again for children born after what date? And what was the replacement provision in effect in 1970 if the effective date in 70 was prior to Cruz birth?
I tend to doubt your analysis is one which is likely to be adopted by the Supreme Court. Under existing conditions, it is likely that the Court would rule Natural Born means born within the geographical confines of the several states as constituted on the date of birth.
Further, everyone should also understand that the Constitutional Bar is generally of the consensus view that the citizenship statute you cite is probably unconstitutional for the reason that the child of a father born under the same circumstances would not be a citizen.
Conceivably that issue could be resolved by retroactive amendment of the citizenship statute to make US Citizen father children citizen's at birth as if they had been born to Citizen mother's. Making conclusive proof by DNA of the father would seem to meet the usual objection to such an amendment. Drawback to such an amendment would be that it would make the present occupant of the White House a citizen at birth also since his father was a multi generational US Citizen.
Understanding the actual situation in connection with Cruz birth citizenship however is important because it might offer a road map for modification of the Constitution that might have some general appeal.
Huh?
When was his father ever a US citizen?
Is there some record of this Kenyan born British subject ever even expressing the desire to be an American citizen?
Or did I miss the invisible </sarcasm> tag?
Eleanor Darragh, b. Wilmington DE 1935. Moved from DE to TX as a teenager, graduated Rice Univ TX age 21 (1956)... Ummm I think that makes her qualify. Only moved to Canada in the 1960s. The age 14 thing. The 10 year resident thing all passes muster, unless you want to disqualify Delaware as a state because of SloJo Biden... LOL
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.