No it most certainly does NOT. The BC asks for "Name of Mother Before Marriage" and no where on there does it say she is a single mother.
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.”
I meant Ted.
Let it go. You don’t like the guy, don’t vote for him. It’s pretty simple.
Have a great day.
No it most certainly does NOT. The BC asks for "Name of Mother Before Marriage" and no where on there does it say she is a single mother.
As simple people search gives you all this. Looks like Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson Cruz Darragh was born about 1935 which made her about 35 when Ted was born in Canada in 1970. She got her degree at Rice University in Houston, TX. Looks like she probably does meet the requirement to pass on US citizenship.
Why do you want to modify the Constitution?
“””Do you really think that the policy determination of a Secretary of State trumps a federal court ruling?”””
When the federal court ruling specifically contradicts KNOWN historic fact? Yes. Why call something ‘well settled’ when there are multiple historic instances contradicting the assumption.
Bayard wasn’t the only U.S. Secretary of State who determined that those born in the U.S. to an alien father weren’t even U.S. citizens at all; their nationality was that of their fathers’.
No it most certainly does NOT. The BC asks for "Name of Mother Before Marriage" and no where on there does it say she is a single mother.
You are correct. My mistake. I had difficulty reading the fine print on the copy BD sent me.
Point of Wilson is that no divorce from Wilson was found.
Secondary point is that given the numerous variations in the citizenship statutes, in order to determine the route to citizenship for a specific child born outside the US, you needed significantly more information that just knowing the mother and father and their citizenship status.
I suspect that Cruz and his counsel have exercised all the permutations and have support for his fairly strong public position that he was a citizen at birth. I keep seeing these statements and decided to respond to Big Ed and Constitution's posts to see if we could figure out how strong their position on this point really is.
One essential element of that discussion is that there is a fairly strong consensus in the Con Law bar that the basic mother citizen statue is Unconstitutional, violating the equal protection clause, for the reason that the child of a US Citizen father and non-Citizen mother does not have an equal path to citizenship.
If I were going to rely on that clause, I would try to get Congress to retroactively amend the statute to make children of fathers citizens under the same circumstances. The objection to doing so historically was the issue of proving the man was actually the father; in the modern world, we have a better scientific answer.
Looking at the historical data of prior marriages of the parents and other issues, it is no longer so clear to me which provision Cruz relies on for his assertion of citizenship at birth which was my real objective in looking at the issue in the first place.
A court’s ruling stands unless and until that ruling is overturned by a higher court or Congress passes and a President signs into law an act that renders the court ruling moot.
The reason that Judge Gibney can state accurately that “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.” Is because that statement is based on the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which has been cited as precedent in more than 1000 subsequent court rulings and has never been overturned or even seriously challenged. Nor has the Wong holding been rendered moot by legislation to the contrary.
That is why a former conservative Republican state Senator from Columbus, Georgia, appointed to the federal judiciary by President George W. Bush could rule that: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—Rhodes v. MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
Judge Land then imposed a $20,000 sanction on the attorney who brought the lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility and that fine (for filing a frivolous lawsuit) was upheld by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and then by the full U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2009/10/14/872844/judge-land-sanctions-orly-taitz.html
That is essentially correct and this is an effort to summarize the political consequences as I see them.
I am also going to respond here to both points in Constitution's #300.
In #300, Constitution says: "That is why Natural Born Citizen means, A person born of citizen parents both mother and father loyal only to the USA. The founders understood this.
So in my opinion this means that Republicans Cruz, Jindal, Rubio or the current occupier of the White House, Obama, are NOT constitutionally eligible."
That's simply wrong. This stuff about the effect of citizenship of parentage and grand parentage is irrelevant. It almost certainly had nothing to do with the issue even at the time of the initial adoption of the Constitution.
I am not going to rewrite a brief here on the topic of Natural Born Citizen--if I ever get the opportunity to argue the case to the Supreme Court, I have a brief as well as a handful of opinions.
As I recall, the significant historical document is an exchange of letters, I believe between Washington and John Jay in which the author made the point that a requirement other than citizenship should be considered as a qualification for President because under applicable principles of international law, a person is subject to the sovereignty of the head of state where birth occurs.
More specifically, Washington, I believe, expressed the concern of the republicans that a person born in Canada under the sovereignty of England would attempt to return the US to English sovereignty. Although the Supreme Court often has said it doesn't consider legislative history in connection with Con Law issues, in the context of the issue arising with respect to two candidates both born in Canada, this is a particularly significant piece of history.
The rest of this which purports to come from Law of Nations is surplusage--there is historical doubt whether the edition of Law of Nations available to the founders even considered any of those points beyond the essential rule making persons subject to the sovereignty of the place of birth.
In the modern world, most Constitutional Scholars also believe that if there is any other requirement than place of birth, such requirements were merged in adoption of the 14th Amendment; I don't think so because I do not believe there was ever any other consideration than place of birth and I further am sufficiently knowledgeable today to say that the prevailing view means and means only that to be eligible to hold the office of President, an individual must have been born within the geographical confines of the several states.
I don't think Puerto Rico makes it any better than the territory of Arizona made it for Goldwater.
I will also say that I recognize that the Court is presently an increasingly political institution and if someone like Barry turned up born in Canada, the Liberal Press and the accessibility of people like Roberts to external pressures might very well get a different rule. I doubt that happens with a Conservative.
So under present law, I think Cruz would be held not eligible under the Natural Born clause.
What to do about it? There are a variety of reasons to clarify the meaning of the term--see John Dean's article, I believe in the Wall Street Journal; making the point that succession is not likely to be clear in the event of a National Emergency.
Today, I think there is some political leverage because of Barry's condition. That leverage diminishes as time passes. By December of 2015, it will be gone.
Unless we get the Cruz problem resolved, what is likely to happen is that Cruz appears as the ultimate strongest candidate in the pre-primary and caucus action and gets rid of all the other Conservative candidates. At that point, Bush or Christie appears with the support of the National Media making it clear the Court will hold Cruz ineligible; the Republican Party adopts a convention rule preventing nomination of candidates who are not eligible; we get a Bush nomination; and another Liberal President.
That is where we are headed. Under circumstances where we have been governed by a Liberal President for the last 30 years, the last eight years by a Liberal President who was probably also born in Canada.
One reason Conservatives never achieve their objectives is lack of competent legal help--maybe not surprising under conditions where most of the bar is Liberal.
As to Constitution's point about Barry--"If we take Obama at his word, his father was a Citizen of Kenya. Assuming that this is true, some assert that Obama is still a Natural Born Citizen because they claim that Natural Born means the same a born a citizen."
The short answer is that Barry was not born in Kenya and his father wasn't a citizen of Kenya either. His statements that he was born in Kenya are relevant to possible legal actions but he wasn't born there; and there is a high probability that he was in fact born in Canada. Proving it is going to require professional help that will cost significant amounts of money. Competent legal help is expensive--the Dems come up with the money to get the best; Republicans have relied on volunteers which isn't going to cut it.
Which court has ruled on the evidence of the U.S. Secretaries of State citizenship determinations?
I guess I am a little slow but I fail to see the logic of your post as it relates to presidential eligibility.
Assuming that we stipulate for the sake of this conversation that Cruz was/is in fact a citizen at birth.
He has never proclaimed except by weak insinuation that he was/is a Natural Born Citizen.
If that is his position, he should say so. I have yet to hear the words "Natural Born Citizen" come out of his mouth.
Have you?
I don’t think Cruz is so stupid to run. More likely he plan is to bring hussein’s ineligiblity to the headlines where CNNABCCBSNBC can’t sweep it under the rug anymore.
You stated my conclusion, said I was wrong while ignoring all the logic I used in that post. You compose your post like a clever attorney.
So I encourage people here to read my post # 300, then your reply and decide if they agree with my thinking or yours.
The last reply was ment for David.... My Bad
When I concluded in post 300 That Natural Born Citizen means, a person born of citizen parents both mother and father loyal only to the USA. That was a contextual conclusion based the logic of the framers.
You stated my conclusion, said I was wrong while ignoring all the logic I used in that post. You compose your post like a clever attorney.
So I encourage people here to read my post # 300, then your reply and decide if they agree with my thinking or yours.
Maybe. I see Cruz as our best candidate in every respect except that I think he flunks Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
Getting Barry out on the table is a legitimate objective but to do that, you need to come up with real evidence. I think evidence is out there but it is going to take resources to get at it.
It may be that the early start will afford him the opportunity to do that.
Okay Something we agree on... Take care
I may not have been really clear on where I was going with that either.
If I were running Cruz, I would have two immediate objectives.
I would be trying to amend the Constitution to define Natural Born Citizen--maybe something like citizen at birth plus two grandparents and four great grandparents born in the USA.
I would also be trying to smoke Barry out on the theory that putting the Liberals on the defensive on Barry would help me with my Constitutional Amendment tactic; and might well also force a Court decision approving Canada that would benefit Cruz.
She was born Nov 23, 1934 in Wilmington.
I didn’t say you were wrong. I agree that Cruz and Obama are ineligible. Read my posts.
You must have me confused with someone else.
I'm betting they went on a romantic weekend in Mexico to get hitched. Reynosa, Mex. is right across the river.
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.