Posted on 08/30/2013 12:02:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
By Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow In Constitutional Sudies and Editor-In-Chief, Cato Supreme Court Review
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 believe the DNC is already salivating over this possibility!
Very astute observations...."Chip".
If we elect a true conservative we can begin to clean this mess up, repair the government and then deal with issues like eligibility, Illegal immigration etc Let us focus on electing true conservatives before it is too late.
I’ll stand my ground, anchored by the truth and the Constitution. If you wish to blow away in the wind, be my guest.
Ronald Reagan’s 1980 successful campaign for presidency began in earnest in 1974. It took 6 years of dedication and hard work by basically grass roots people to get him past the GOP roadblocks and to secure the nomination and the presidency.
We have about 3 years to do what it took Ronald Reagan to do in 6 years. Either we all gather under one banner or we will be scattered abroad.
It is long past time where we need to choose our Ronald Reagan for 2016. If it isn’t going to be Ted Cruz, then we’d better find somebody in a hurry. Ted is the smartest guy in Washington. He is everything we could ask for in his political viewpoint and he will destroy any liberal candidate in a one on one debate. He has not cowered before the MSM and he has managed to avoid being destroyed by the slanders of the MSM.
I don’t see anyone else on the horizon that is even in the same league with Cruz on enunciating conservative principles confidently and powerfully.
He, in many ways is the reflection of our founders.
I am glad we are one the same page. Clearly now is not the time to quibble over some esoteric interpretation of an archaic expression in the Founding document when the principles of that founding document are under daily assault.
Maybe Ted Cruz is not the right guy for this time. Maybe I’m wrong about his leadership qualities and maybe there is someone out there who is more equipped to lead us into the future. Maybe, but we don’t have a lot of time to find him or her. Early voting starts 3 years from today. We are already three years behind the curve.
If anyone thinks Ted Cruz is not the man for the Job, then tell us who is and why he or she is better equipped for that job.
I don’t want to hear the excuse “Ted Cruz would make a great president, but....” No buts. Either we find our Reagan now or we can look towards a Future under Tyranny.
you are stadning your ground, all the while too ignorant to know your ground is false. You paint yourself as principled, when in effect, your’e just wrong.
Self righteousness without righteousness is just nauseating.
and of course, you have zip zero nada intellectual response to my post. You are out of ammo.....
There are many possible reasons why the language was not put in the 1795 Act. Your reason that it was some kind of planned temporary period where children of foreign born citizens were considered as natural born citizens is only a guess and I find it least likely.
CNN Host... “ We need to cut this conversation short for now However, it is very interesting that after 8 years of fringe republicans claiming Obama was foreign born they now present a candidate who was not even born in the USA.”
You are assuming that there is no breach in the firewall of the evident criminal conspiracy to protect what logic dictates to be Barry’s foreign birth.
Mike Zullo has been intimating strongly that new, as yet confidential, evidence has come to the Cold Case Posse that refutes Barry’s Hawaii birth narrative. If a congressional investigation breaches Barry’s firewall with new evidence, then the advantage in the comparison between Cruz and Barry flips to advantage Ted Cruz!
Recall that Arpaio’s investigation was instigated by an AZ Tea Party and Ted Cruz is from the TX Tea Party.
Now all of a sudden we have an article in CATO written by a friend of Cruz, Ilya Shapiro, who goes out of his way in the thread article to distinguish Cruz’s eligibility situation from Barry’s:
“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.”
You've hit the nail right on the head.
I don't see anyone out there who can match Cruz's intelligence, education and background.
I can't seen anyone out there who can and will advocate conservative values and principles as articulately as Ted Cruz.
And, perhaps most importantly, I don't see anyone out there who is less intimidated by the MSM and by the interest groups who demand surrender or unnecessary compromise.
Ted Cruz is very special. I don't know of an adequate substitute. And, no, I don't work for Ted Cruz. ;-)
Ted Cruz - 2016
I'm looking for a America first conservative. I hope it is Cruz but if he is not for ending our loss of blood and treasure as world policeman plus restoring made in America, I'll keep looking.
And just in case I’ve failed to make that point clearly enough...
I support Ted Cruz. I do not believe his loyalty, his patriotism, his eligibility to serve are really in question.
But many honorable Freepers have made legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue, and it remains unresolved. It remains unresolved primarily because the base cowards in the Federal courts have punted upon every opportunity to clarify the requirements as they apply to presidential eligibility. There have been many cases cited, but none bearing upon this very specific issue.
Let the name-calling begin. I believe conservatives would be better served by selecting an equally qualified and patriotic candidate who does not have these questions hanging over his or her head.
Sarah Palin, Justin Amash, Mike Lee... All apparently good conservatives. I do not believe any man or woman is the “savior” of our republic. God may save us, if it is His will.
That being said, I will vote for Cruz over any liberal or squish.
Ted Cruz or somebody like him 2016
Well said / bears repeating
Article II Section I of the Constitution not excluded of course — right???
Actually is was the "Naturalization Act of 1790" (and 1795), not Nationality Act".
Original Intent is demonstrated in more ways than one by those Acts, being largely created by Founders as they were, being of that era. The sword cuts both ways, in other words. It shows that birth abroad was not originally intended to preclude eligibility to the Presidency in and of itself,...
It showed more than that. It specifically used the term NBC.
but it also demonstrates that citizenship at birth is not necessarily natural-born citizenship, Constitutionally speaking.
Don't know how you come to that conclusion.
Precisely. This needs to be squared away. It's not about Obama anymore. Or about Cruz.
He was the first Republican member of Congress to take up a microphone and condemn any involvement in Syria. Does that help?
My overall point being that if honorable men and women on Free Republic can find room to vehemently disagree on this subject, how will we fare when the combined weight of the press, the no-information voters, the Clinton machine and the liberal courts comes to bears on the discussion.
They have already signalled the intention.
Truth and honor are not debatable in my world. I sleep well at night. If you wish to insult that, have at it.
Well I hope you are correct about the public disclosure of evidence regarding Obama's Birth place.
But I see no evidence that Zullo is being effective. I want to be wrong. But not one of these VIPs has even called a press conference to announce that they have met with Arpaio's team, have seen obvious evidence of a fraudulent document and are vigorously pursuing the matter.
This could all be done without revealing the secret evidence that Zullo says must remain hidden. I fear they are just stringing him along.
I hope I am wrong
“Do you honestly believe that Democrats have the logic, integrity and internal consistency not to use an eligibility argument against Cruz? I don’t. They’ll be screaming it from the rooftops. They hold us to our own set of rules, not theirs. Therefore, exploring the matter thoroughly is necessary and the right thing to do, both politically and Constitutionally.
“Ted Cruz is certainly paying attention and doing what he can to remove objections on this basis.”
Absolutely correct! Cruz, by arranging to have at least his short form BC released and having his friend write the CATO article is three years ahead on airing out objections in this campaign cycle compared to the airing out of Barry and McCain’s issues 2008.
Democrats attacked McCain’s eligibility in early 2008 but the backed down once an evident quid pro quo cease-fire was reached with the GOP-e that Barry’s NBC status would not be contested by them. In 2016 I see no quid pro quo motivation for the Dems to restrain themselves from attacking Cruz...provided that Barry’s Hawaii birth narrative hold up through 2016.
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.