Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
November 14, 2011
Summary
The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements (although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.
The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”
In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.
Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
Click the link for full report:
I believe his mother was only living in Canada because she was working at the US Embassy there. She was born in America. So, although Ted was born in Canada, his mother was still a US Citizen .. which automatically gave him citizenship.
Ted Cruz is a “natural born” citizen of America.
I hope we’re not going to have a major fight over this issue here on FR.
Thankyou for posting this, Jim. I am so sick and tired of those dismissing Cruz! He is Reagan. He has never compromised. He stands tall and is exactly the fighter we need in 2016!
Canada is not in America.
It is in The America’s.
No one wants to immigrate to The Americas.
Everyone wants to make it to America...
No one wants to be like The Americas
Everyone wants to be like America....
No one wants what The Americas make...
Everyone wants to wear Levis, Have a Coke and a Smile, Eat at McDonalds and enjoy our freedoms and liberty.
Mexico Does not posses American ideals.
Argentina does not possess American ideals.
Cuba does not possess American ideals.
Can-uh-Duh is America lite...Ehhh
Only the United States is America.
And only in America can a black boy grow up and become a white woman.
Baseball is an American sport.
Soccer sucks.
The NBA is American...
Being like Mike is American...
Being like Fidel is not.
The “Just Do it” spirit is uniquely American.
Canadians aren’t Americans and would be highly insulted to be called such.
Mexico is a basket case, as are it’s southern neighbors like Guatemala, Honduras and other countries.
No one wants to fight to get to Cuba or Venezuela.
Thousands of children crossed the border from Mexico to America just today.
A better life awaits you in America but, not in Haiti. That place blows....
America has Cowboys. Yippee Kye Yeah mthrfkr...Hans is dead.
The countries south of America have Vaqueros. That ain’t sexy.
America plays Cowboys and Indians(substitute any others if you care. We play that too)
America elects cowboys to be President.
America invented Texas Hold em. Not the new immigration game but, the kind of card game even James Bond Plays for big money, while enjoying an American drink; The Martini
America has a stirring and kick ass National Anthem.
America has Elvis. He rocks.
America the Beautiful, from sea to shining sea.
America saves the worlds collective ass all day long.
Heck, America will even beat someone down because we like a good fight and hate bullies.
America “The Shining City on the Hill”.
America kicked a major bully’s buttocks, twice.
America will go break things to end the argument, put your sorry azz country back together and never ask for anything in return.
America shows up whenever disaster befalls another nation. WE don’t just show up, we’re firstest and bestest.
America gives til it hurts.
America seeks not further territory but, if we help you, only a little land for fallen men.
America gave the world D-day.
The world is better for America in it.
No one wants to trade in Peso’s, Rubles or the Euro.
American green backs rule the world and every country I have ever been to loves to take our loot but, won’t take the loot of a neighboring country I just came from...weird.
The world loves America and can easily find it on a map.
If you can’t make it in America, you can’t make it anywhere...
Sure, some countries have bullfighting but, they’re sissies.
Americans ride em til we’re done...
Coming to America! Neil Diamond or Eddie Murphy...
America has Rocky with James Brown belting out “Living in America!”
That is good enough for me.
A birther thread? Really? What is the point of posting this here? Are you actually looking for dissent or opposing views from Constitutional Conservatives or are you just looking to ban them?
Imagine for a moment that the year is 1815. A woman who is a U.S. citizen by birth to two other citizens travels to Great Britain, where she then weds the ruling King of Great Britain and gives birth to the King's first son.
Would that son, the heir to the British throne, then be a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. and be eligible for the Presidency?
I can't imagine a case of more questionable loyalty and yet there are those on this thread who would believe that our Founders would have no problem with this.
I don't know about anyone else, but I've long ago tired of all these Constitutional "experts" on here who have now spent half a decade trying to define "natural born citizen" in a way that suits their agenda.
As it stands right now, Ted Cruz is quite possibly our ONLY hope for 2016. I am not aware of another conservative politician who has the experience and ability to win this thing in two years.
That is correct but Ted Cruz’s location of birth is not the constitutional issue.
The issue of "natural born" as specified in the Constitution doesn't have to do with the location of Ted Cruz's birth. Natural born has to do with the location of his parents’ birth.
Address this question.
Why did the founders include a requirement for a presidential candidate to be natural born but not for congressional candidates?
They had a well thought out and logical reason to add that requirement for presidential candidates.
The sweet irony is that the Obama precedent means Ted Cruz must be considered “natural born” so I’m in.
I know, I know, we know better in today's open border world.
Long live the Dauphine of France, the future POTUS of the U.S...at least, as long as 50.1% of the low information voters think he's cool.
Sorry, Ted’s not eligible.
The thirteen original states all adopted English Common Law for the decision of legal questions. Under ECL, only persons born in the realm were natural born subjects. Parliament, by statute, extended NBS status to certain offspring born across seas, in order to allow for the descent of hereditary titles and properties. But the 13 States did not adopt ESL, only ECL. So the meaning of “natural born” inherited in the country by that adoption was limited to persons born on the soil.
By the way, in a bold strike against those who object to so called “anchor babies,” under ECL and under the law of this country resulting from the adoption of ECL, it DOES NOT MATTER what the citizenship of a child’s parents is, when a child is born here, they are a natural born citizen. The only exception would be children born here while their parents are serving in a diplomatic function for another country.
Here are links to my blog posts explaining why Ted cannot qualify:
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2013/09/but-what-if-ted-cant-be-president.html
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/deuces-wild-and-foreign-born-
americans.html
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/cruz-mccain-george-romney-ineligible.html
As I’ve staked out this position, I have been treated like a heretic by birthers whose thinking is based on application of legal principles found in Emmerich Vattel’s The Law of Nations. Vattel describes citizenship and sets out principles of citizenship that require one to be born on the soil of the nation and to be the child of citizens to be a natural born citizen. Their dependence on Vattel is misguided:
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/cruz-mccain-george-romney-ineligible.html