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.”
“Needing one” wasn’t the point. McCain got it to stop the dems from “declaring” him ineligible and making the focus of his campaign about that. Again, why make it a pissing match?
Well, first, it was a non-binding resolution that meant nothing, but second, McCain was known as a “maverick” for compromising with the opposition.
I seriously doubt that the same folks in the Senate who adored McCain would sponsor a resolution to help Cruz. He’s a “whacko bird,” remember?
From various members of the 1st Congress debating the 1790 Naturalization Act. (Note Jackson's use of Blackstone, and the other's use of British law.):
Mr. Jackson.--It was observed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we could not modify or confine our terms of naturalization; that we could not admit an alien to the rights of citizenship progressively. I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by the reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone, I, 10.--"Naturalization," says he, "cannot be performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King's legiance, except only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament without such disabling clause in it." So that here we find, in that nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely necessary to be pursued in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners. Representative James Jackson, Georgia, Officer during Revolution in State Militia, delegate to provincial Congress and to State Convention.
Mr. Burke....The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.Aedanus Burke, South Carolina, who had been an officer in the Continental Army.
Mr. Hartley observed, that the subject was entirely new, and that the committee had no positive mode to enable them to decide; the practice of England, and the regulations of the several States, threw some light on the subject, but not sufficient to enable them to discover what plan of naturalization would be acceptable under a Government like this. Some gentlemen had objected to the bill, without attending to all its parts, for a remedy was therein provided for some of the inconveniences that have been suggested. It was said, the bill ought to extend to the exclusion of those who had trespassed against the laws of foreign nations, or been convicted of a capital offence in any foreign kingdom; the last clause contains a proviso to that effect, and he had another clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens, born out of the United States.Rep Thomas Hartley, Pennsylvania, Continental Army Officer, Delegate to Provincial Congress, Delegate to Ratification Convention
Your siblings are natural born citizens by both current law and the earliest law on the subject, and they would have been by British law on which the Founders relied.
Ping to 679 and 683
McCain has a lot of “Friends” in Congress. Cruz has very few. If an NBC resolution was introduced in Congress, I would think that Harry Reid and the Senate dems would reject it thus casting some serious doubt on Cruz’s eligibility.
Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen.
We don’t need no steenking resolution.
If they want to play hardball, then we need to be ready to match them.
This is war. You don’t give your enemy the ammunition to kill you before the battle begins.
So, are you up for the battle? Or are you ready to surrender before the first volley is launched?
McCain was delivered up to us by the establishment. THEY wanted him, because as you pointed out, he has a lot of friends in Congress. THEY wanted Romney too, so we got Romney.
What does this mean for Cruz and how he will be treated? I can’t see that far out, but I can see far enough to realize that the dems will be out in force against whomever gets close to being nominated from our side. They will “go there”, so what plan does our side have for that?
Waiting till the last minute doesn’t seem wise.
Yes, I know.
Yes, the Democrats will also be attempting to win a majority of the electoral votes. They will make the usual arguments. But, they'll be up against a better candidate than they drew in the last two elections. That's how our system has worked for the last 57 presidential elections.
Birther-mania is dead. The time has come to pack up the birther DVDs, the birther books, the autographed photos of Orly Taitz and the detail maps of Kenya into a box and to put that box next to the box of Donna Summer albums. Birther-mania will assume the same historical relevance as the hula hoop, the twist, the limbo dance, the disco scene and the macarena. Its time has now come.
Ted Cruz - 2016
When you insist that your target has only one of two choices, which you designate omitting all other possibilities, you instantly marginalize yourself as a credible discussion participant. You're becoming so obnoxious you're not even registering the subtle changes in posts! Sheesh!
When you spit at posters with such crap as this, you marginalize yourself, not the one you're spitting at: "If you can't accept that then vote for Christie or Hillary."
It may not have registered yet in your brain but you cannot bully someone on the Internet. They just tend to put you on ignore. I'm putting you on ignore hereafter, so spittle away. Your foaming at the mouth insults might bolster your fragile ego, but they just come across as you're being obnoxious trying to bully posters.
Our side? Does this mean that you are ready to support Ted Cruz come Hell or high water?
One idea would be to get Sarah Palin to be his VP pick. Do you think anyone from the enemy would dare challenge Ted Cruz's election if they knew Sarah Palin would be in line to take over ?
Frankly I'm not the least bit concerned about this issue. If you read the recent oats from xzins on this thread, it is quite clear that the NBC clause in the 1790 law signed by GW is wholly in line with the English Common law definitions as noted in Black's Law Dictionary published before the Cnstitutional convention.
Our side has the law on our side and guys like Mark Levin standing in the wings. In light of those facts, why would you cower in fear of what the other side might do? They are going to lie, cheat and steal no matter who we nominate. The NBC issue is a slam dunk. We will win any challenges just as BO has won every challenge.
So are you ready to give Ted Cruz the benefit of your doubt and support him both before and after he announces his candidacy? Or do you have someone better in mind?
I think that many of these people that strictly interpret the eligibility clause should not be considered enemies of our cause.
I am one of them.... BUT You changed my way of thinking.
Now, assuming Cruz is on the ticket, I will support him.... enthusiastically.... But not because I think he is a Natural Born Citizen. I will support him because I love my country and this is war. We need someone like him to help us climb the mountain and rebuild the "Shining City on the hill".
So rather than insist that everyone like Ladysforest agree that Cruz is a natural born citizen, why not use your position and convince them that in order to save our union, as conservatives on the same side, we should all support his candidacy if he is the best qualified conservative on the ticket. Our union is at stake and we are not in normal times.
McCain was given this resolution sponsored by the Dems because they
1) Correctly perceived he was a weak candidate and easily beaten.
2) So the naive RINO leadership would not go after Obama's eligibility.
That is not the case with Cruz who will be a strong candidate. Should Cruz choose to run, just watch, the Godless opposition will challenge his eligibility.
We must be prepared.
This is why [Article II; Section I] differentiates between "Natural Born Citizen".....or "Citizen" (I won't say......."plain old" because some folks get upset at that).Wait - no, it doesn't.
[Article II; Section I U.S. Constitution]No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; (emphasis yours)It's between natural born citizens and grandfathered citizens:
[Article II; Section I U.S. Constitution]No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; (emphasis mine)That grandfather clause died, as an ongoing concern, sometime in the nineteenth century with the last person so covered. As they knew it would.
I’ve checked and thus far all of the anti-birther/Obot blogs are supporting Cruz’ eligibility.
Here’s one example from Obama Conspiracy Theories.com
“Yeah Cruz Is Eligible”
While I do not think that Congress can change the definition of “natural born citizen,” I do believe that they can change the status of individuals so that they meet the definition. I don’t see any qualitative difference between legislation adding a new state to the union (and thereby making new US citizens at birth) and Congress making citizens at birth through legislation under their naturalization powers. No one would argue that only people born in the 13 original states can be President, so why should they argue that only people born under the English Common Law provisions governing citizenship in 1789 can be President?
I should point out that the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen.” One has to look elsewhere for the definition. For a definition, I look to the first Congress, who in 1790 by legislation made certain persons natural born citizens who were not natural born citizens before. Those Congressmen, one of whom, James Madison, is recognized as the principal author of the Constitution, decided that they could by legislation create natural born citizens, and the former President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington signed that bill into law. I do not think that the actions of the First Congress and President Washington are easily dismissed, nor are arguments of carelessness on their part credible.
The clear implication of the 1790 Act (and the Oxford English Dictionary) is that to our founders “natural born citizen” meant “citizen at birth.” So the question that remains is whether the Constitution’s naturalization provision gives Congress the power to create citizens at birth (in contrast to the usual understanding of naturalization–making someone a citizen after birth). The Congress has and does create citizens at birth (even in some cases retroactively) and I don’t know of any challenge to them doing that. (Judge Alsup in Robinson v. Bowen even opined that a retroactive act of Congress made John McCain a natural born citizen.) I see no objection to Congress changing membership in the pool of natural born citizens, through its naturalization powers.
If one were to invoke the English Common Law as both defining the term “natural born subject” and limiting which persons meet the definition, then I would point them to the various British acts that create natural born subjects, as argument against that position. That is, in 1789 Americans had a contemporary example of British legislation that expanded the pool of natural born subjects. Or put another way, I think that saying that English Common Law defines membership in the class of natural born subjects is the same mistake as saying that Minor v. Happersett defines membership in the class of natural born citizens–confusing necessary with sufficient conditions.)
Since according to U. S. Law, Canadian-born Ted Cruz was a U. S. citizen at birth, then yeah, he’s eligible to run for President.
And from the liberal magazine, The Atlantic Monthly
“Yes, Ted Cruz CanBe Born in Canada ans Still Become President of the US”
“I’ve checked and thus far all of the anti-birther/Obot blogs are supporting Cruz’ eligibility.”
Perhaps with good reason, as shown in second paragraph (in quotes).
From the Opening Post of this thread:
“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.”
So just in case you missed it, Nero, let’s just tune in on this part:
“..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. ..”
Moral of the story: Obama birthers might have a case, PROVIDED Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, of course.
Cruz birthers absolutely DO NOT have a case.
Ping to 679 and 683
You employ every tactic of Obots. You denigrate any person who disagrees with you. ... Ray76
Project much?
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.