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.”
The conclusion is reached via the fact that the “natural-born” language was removed at all. Clearly there was a distinction being made. Otherwise, the effort was a pointless exercise. Children of citizen fathers meeting the requisite residency who were born abroad were thenceforth to be regarded as citizens, as opposed to the prior natural-born citizens under the 1790 Act.
Sure does. Now restore American MADE IN AMERICA jobs and he will be great.
He is in no position to do that unless he is elected. There are three years from today before early voting begins. We need to get to work now if Ted Cruz has any chance at being elected. We need a grassroots effort to draft him until he announces.
Reagan had 6 years to build that grassroots effort. We have half that time.
Are you in or out?
“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.”
Rep. Stockman, in a safe GOP district, has been doing a limited admission of getting onboard with Zullo, but it would be extremely ill-advised, not to mention dangerous personally and politically, for any politician to go public against Barry until all the groundwork has been laid.
The Snowden revelations that absent restraint (Barry has none) the NSA and FBI are capable of wiring up Zullo and Stockman’s cellphones and laptops as well as the sudden deaths (natural or not) of prominent persons who just claimed to have damning evidence against Barry are chilling. The AP wiretaps by Holder have caused lots of government whistleblowers to go silent, although new protocols for getting leaks to the NY Times seem to be functioning just fine.
Any exposure of a non-Hawaii birth is now in the political arena of a House investigation, not the criminal arena, despite Zullo’s characterization and timing is everything.
Absolutely.
And the RINOs haven't united behind a candidate yet.This is our chance.
An elected & executive cannot be removed from office over eligibility alone. It’s simply not constitutional. Suppose the cold-casers proved beyond any doubt that Obama was born on the floor of a mud hut in Kenya, and had video.
All that could be accomplished, is to create more anger and resentment of Obama among those of us who already oppose him, and give the Dims an opening to attack Cruz.
Without congressional action, Obama is here until he’s replaced by the electorate.
Timing IS everything, and now is too late.
Should have been “elected & serving”
I will try to get the 1790 law up to read. In the meantime I have the following comments. 1) Would a law made in 1790 supersede the words in the Constitution adopted in 1787? 2)Cruz was not ‘born’ to a father while residing in the USA. Cruz was born to a Cuban citizen father while residing in Canada. 3) I take that the word ‘born ‘ does not mean just ‘residing ‘. 4) The act of being sworn in as a ‘citizen’ does not convey ‘natural born’ though I would think some if not most of the frontiersmen were also born in the ‘States’. As to any individual holding any office under the Constitution that would require special attention.
Since 2008, 207 lawsuits have been filed challenging Obama’s eligibility. Additionally there have been 92 state and federal appeals and 17 U.S. Supreme Court challenges. That’s a total of 317 legal actions against Obama’s Article Two, Section 1 natural born citizenship.
He’s still in office.
Obama used a “no drama” approach to eligibility. He rarely addressed the issue; he refused to go on the defensive about it and when he talked about it at all, he joked about it and ridiculed his opposition. And most importantly, he used the issue to motivate his base of supporters and to raise money.
If Ted Cruz decides to run he can use the issue in the same way.
Saul Alinsky tactics?
How about the words of US Senators?
In 2000 and in 2004 resolutions were advanced to “maximize voter choice by opening the presidency to naturalized citizens”. In 2004 multiple statements specifically pointed to the then Michigan Governor, Jennifer Granholm, who was born in Canada and lived there until the age of four, being ineligible due to the location of her birth - mention was not made of her parents nationality at the hearing.
But it wasn’t just the two proposed amendment resolutions, rather there were fifteen different attempts made since the seventies.
When you read through the resolutions there is much about “fairness”, and “it’s for the children”. Mention is even made of slavery, and get this - dreams. “The dreams of the kids”. Oh yes, all of the tenderest buttons are pushed, all of the finer emotions are appealed to.
Darrell Issa, Hatch, Conyers, and Barney Frank are all heavy hitters in the push to change the eligibility requirement. Frank (who backed several amendment attempts)even refers to the Constitutional requirement as “invidious discrimination”. The founders are mocked repeatedly, and much credit is given to the populace for being “too smart” to fall for a “slick mole” being slid past us and installed in the White House.
Rep. Rohrabacher, CA, who appeared with Frank in front of the Committee, filed a House Joint Resolution 104 at the same time in 2004 - and said it mirrored exactly SJR 15.
Both houses were going after this hard.
Rep. Rohrabacher said, “Let me just note that the reasons our Founding Fathers added a natural born citizen requirement to the Constitution’s qualification for being president, those reasons may have seemed like they were real back then (get that? MAY have seemed like they were real BACK THEN), but they are archaic, and technologically they have been dealt with in the meantime. The main rational seems to be that our Founding Fathers had was to protect future generations from undue foreign influence which would happen through the elections of a foreign-born leader to the Executive office.”
“This mind set prevailed among our Founding Fathers because, of course, they had just freed themselves from foreign domination. And that may have made a lot of sense BACK THEN.” emphasis mine
She goes on to say, “Today of course, the office of President and Vice President are the only offices where a person who is not born in the United States is disqualified from serving.” Also in reference to a list of names she presented of naturalized citizens, she says, “Who are now ineligible for President because they are not U.S. citizens OF birth.”emphasis mine
I believe with my whole heart that the threat of such a thing happening is greater now than it has ever been in history.
According to our representatives in 2004, “The immigrants and naturalized are more patriotic, and the natural Americans take their liberty and freedom for granted.”
Issa had this to say, “So, we could pass a law today allowing someone to be President that previously was in doubt. That would include obviously those born abroad of U.S. citizens” he goes on to mention McCain - .
Basically, the eligibility requirement is mocked for being outdated, un-American, and hints it was only inserted as a sop to those who were believing rumors that foreign monarchs were being approached to serve as President.
A witness at the hearing, Akhil Reed Amar, Prof. of Law and Poli. Sci., Yale had this to say, among other things, “Only the Pres. and Vice Presidency were reserved for birth-citizens”
In 2004, nine short years ago, it was acknowledged that birth in the U.S. was a requirement. Nothing has changed since. There have been no amendments to the eligibility requirements. It does mention that in this Joint Resolution. Mr. Amar, “Now would be the first time we have tweaked the Founders’ rules of Presidential eligibility”.
So, according to the “experts”, the 14th Amendment, nor any law passed since the Constitution was ratified has “tweaked” the requirement. And don’t you love how they make it seem like such and itty-bitty thing? Oh, just a little “tweak”.
“Under the English Act of Settlement, 1701 NO naturalized (English)subject could ever serve in the House of Commons, or Lords, or the Privy Counsel, or in a wide range of other offices. The U.S. Constitution repudiated this (English) tradition across the board, opening the House, the Senate, the Cabinet and the Federal judiciary to naturalized and native alike.” ~ Prof. Amar
So, we threw off English law in regards to our Senators, Reps. Judges, etc., but clung to it to define the qualification for our President and Vice President?
It is said that our natural born eligibility requirement came from English common law, and meant the exact same thing as “natural born subject”, simply put, mere birth on the soil.
While nobility frequently married other nobles born in the same country as they, this was not the case for Monarchs.
Monarchs were NOT excluded from being born in other countries - because royalty usually do marry royalty from afar. An English monarch isn’t going to marry an English monarch. They would marry a German one though, for example. ~ Ladysforest
Over and over in that 2004 resolution it is stated that only those born in the U.S. are eligible. I am not interpreting their words, I am not the internet sea lawyer of which you spoke.
How have things changed in nine years?
As I said in post #72............"FWIW"..............I think Ted Cruz would be a magnificent President. He's a magnificent Senator....already! But.....he is not a Natural Born Citizen. So what? Neither is the clown who sits there now!
I believe a precedent has been set.
But....that does not preclude the "dummies" from using every conceivable tool in their arsenal in an attempt to defeat a Republican candidate that has not been hand picked by their media cohorts and the RINO faction who always seems to agree with them.
Shorter - To defeat the Democrats we must become more like the Democrats.
“But.....he is not a Natural Born Citizen.”
I agree. He has a Canadian birth certificate. Just because Obama was given a pass and subverted Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution doesn’t mean Ted Cruz should be given a pass too.
A wise man once wrote:
Be careful about tossing aside the Constitution in order to get the President you want because you may wake up the day after the election without not only the President you wanted but also the Constitution that you once had.
Ted Cruz was born to an American mother. He’s a natural born American citizen. And a patriot! And a constitutionalist! He’s more of a patriot and a constitutionalist than any elected democrat! Or any elected GOP-e RINO!! If he runs and if he’s the strongest conservative running, I will support him to the hilt!!
He’s a Reaganite. Strong on life, family, religious freedom, guns, drilling, economic freedom, small (constitutionally limited) government, defense, border security, individual rights, states rights. He’s smart, articulate, accomplished. As Texas Solicitor General has fought and won several supreme court cases defending these founding principles that we all hold dear.
Hell, yes, I’ll support him!!
Run, Ted, RUN!!
Ted Cruz is in a worse position than Obama in that respect because Obama still holds to his Hawaiian birth certificate and thus his claim of a birth within the US.
Ted Cruz cannot make that claim since it is public knowledge that he was born in Canada -- unless someone who knows can say differently.
You know as well as I do that most folks cannot comprehend the difference between "Natural Born" and "Native Born". They have a vague idea of what "Naturalized" means....but the other terms are interchangeable to most.
This means....there is an excellent chance that "Ted" just well may end up as our nominee. I do not encourage that because I know there will be "Blood"....and as Uncle Chip has so astutely pointed out.....he will be challenged in state after state by the "dummies" regarding any "Electoral" votes he can muster.
Good grief. Why is it so difficult to find a man (or a woman) who has been born here to two citizen parents....that espouses "total conservatism" and is not afraid to engage the morons who habituate the democrat party? I don't know the answer to this question....but I do know that if "Ted" is the nominee.....I'm not going to quibble and stay home!
That happened last time because too many folks were afraid of electing a "Mormon".....remember? He may not have had a staunch conservative background......but I do know he would not have done 99% of the anti liberty, anti free enterprise; anti Constitutional; anti intelligent things the current "Doofus" has done.....so far.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother. He’s a natural born American citizen!! Period. Read the article.
If he runs (and Sarah doesn’t), I have no doubt that he will be the strongest conservative running and this forum will support him to the hilt!! Those who wish to torpedo him will have to sail on other ships. Ain’t gonna happen on FR!!
Would the founders have agreed that a person who holds dual citizenship at birth by birth is a Natural Born Citizen of this nation?
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.