Posted on 03/23/2015 8:36:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Now that Ted Cruz is officially in the Presidential race, you may rest assured that some of the same people who considered it an insult of titanic proportions to even ask to see President Obama’s birth certificate will be kicking off a similar conversation regarding the Texas Senator. Because, you know… he’s a gosh darn foreigner. For the few of you who may have missed it, Cruz was born in Canada. His father was from Cuba but his mother was a US citizen. As our colleague Guy Benson explained over a year ago, this one isn’t even a question.
For the uninitiated, the Texas Senator and conservative stalwart was born in Calgary, Canada — prompting some to insist that he’s not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore ineligible for the presidency. But there are only two types of citizens under the law: Natural born Americans (from birth), and naturalized Americans, who undergo the legal process of becoming a US citizen. Cruz never experienced the latter proceedings because he didn’t need to; his mother was born and raised in Delaware, rendering Cruz an American citizen from the moment of his birth abroad. Meanwhile, Cruz hasn’t even indicated if he has any designs to pursue a White House run — he’s got his hands full in the United States Senate. National Review has more on this preposterous “debate:”
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.” Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen.
This was the same conversation that took place in 2007 and 2008 regarding John McCain. (McCain was born in Panama.) At the time, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama signed on to a simple resolution (along with the rest of the Senate) declaring that Senator McCain was “a natural born citizen” and eligible for the presidency. Given the current, rather toxic climate inside the beltway, I have to wonder if Ted Cruz will be offered the same consideration?
Perhaps a better question, though we’ve kicked this one around here before, is whether or not the Supreme Court will ever rule on this definition once and for all so we can just be done with it. True, we have some federal laws on the books which cover such things and they are frequently referenced when these discussions come up. And there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that this interpretation is any way unconstitutional.
And why would it be? The prevailing wisdom seems to at least have the benefit of sounding reasonable to the layman. Going back to the writing of the Constitution it was recognized that there are only two types of citizens recognized. You are either a citizen at the time of your birth or you become one later by going through the naturalization process. If we have to pick one of these two classes to be “natural born” it seems a rather easy choice.
But, yet again, that answer won’t be “permanent” (for lack of a better word) without the Supremes weighing in on it. And for that to happen, someone would have to challenge it. And that someone would have to have standing to even bring the challenge. You know… the more I think about it, maybe we should just stick with what we have now.
Sadly, I agree. The Constitution died on Usurpation Day, January 20, 2009. It had been ailing for a long time.
He won’t pardon himself, he’ll step down the second to last day in office thus making joe hairplugs biden POTUS long enough to issue the pardon to empERROR 0’barkey.
Devil's advocate: Two wrongs DO make a right?
Guys, you are not analyzing this correctly.
Everyone admits that Obama's father, like Cruz', was not an American citizen. That is utterly settled.
So now we have to turn to the mothers of each. The requirement at the time both were born was that to be a citizen from birth when one parent is not a citizen (regardless of where the birth in question took place), the citizen parent had to reside in the US for at least 5 years after attaining the age of 14. In the case of Cruz, this requirement has been met, so he was a citizen from the moment he was born. In the case of Obama, it wasn't met - his mother was under 19 when he was born. So, based on that, Obama never was and never could be eligible. HOWEVER, there is one exception to that - if he was born on US soil. Hence the fight/controversy over whether he was born in Hawaii or not.
FYI, there is an old Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett (1874), which indicated that the term "natural born citizen" was different and more stringent than a "mere" citizen. It involved being the product of 2 American citizen parents at the time of one's birth. This safeguard (and it applies in U.S. law ONLY to the President) was viewed as having been put in place to ensure that not only did the President have a first loyalty to this country, but that his parents did as well - meaning that the environment in which the future President was raised was one loyal to the well-being of this country. Given the circumstances of Obama's upbringing, we can see the wisdom of that - and he is ineligible even if born in Hawaii, for the simple reason that his father was never a US citizen. If this test is used, then Cruz is not eligible - nor are my own kids, because my wife (though a legal resident at the time), was not a US citizen when they were born (she is now), even though I am a NBC. Under the definition in the first part of this post, Cruz and my kids are NBCs, but Obama's status is in question until the Hawaii thing can be resolved.
Wrong, do the research. He was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Canal Zone. The base did have a hospital. This crap has been debunked numerous times. You still haven’t said if you believe kids born overseas to US citizen parents at a military base are natural born. You danced around that one with the skill of a ballerina!
You are wrong about Cruz when you say, “Cruz's tribal politics prevails...” I also doubt/reject your info. on Texas textbooks as it sounds like Texas has approved these books. It’s very possible the textbooks you speak of, such as “...a sneak peak at the preliminary Social Studies textbook” were read BEFORE the Texas Board of Education changed and approved them. No radical group you mentioned can influence our conservatives on the Texas Board of Education. Here is the truth:
How Texas approves textbooks:
The Texas Board of Education reviews, makes changes if warranted, and approves or rejects textbooks up for approval. Not all subject textbooks come up for approval every year. One year may be science and history and math or some other grouping of subjects. This happens after the already approved textbooks are up for buying new textbooks.
If the board requires changes to the textbook, the publisher changes the books to reflect the changes the board requires. Texas uses so many textbooks, the publishers of textbooks use the Texas approved textbooks to sell to other states.
The Board of Education is comprised of persons elected by the citizens of Texas. A large majority on that board are conservative Christians. The candidates for the board go around Texas speaking to county Republican Party groups. I’ve heard a number of them over the years, and I can tell you they are solid Christians. They don’t allow rewriting of history and go over math textbooks to keep them solid math. The few liberal ones elected to that board don’t go to Republican groups to speak.
Now, a county school board has the right to buy any books they want to supplement the approved textbooks. A school board can spend their money buying anything they want (think land of the free to buy what they want). If their county citizens approve what their local school board does, it’s a done deal. They could buy books in Italian or Russian or Spanish, etc.. If you don’t like what the local school board does, change the makeup of you local school board by electing other people to be on that board.
So, I think the books you are speaking of were read before the board changed them, or they are being bought by local school boards which don’t have to have approval by the Texas Board of Education.
Another point: The education board meetings can be seen and heard by bringing up the Texas Legislature on the web and watching those board meetings. I have done that and watched the few liberals on the board freaking out. speaking harsh words, because they can’t do jack to keep liberal crap in our textbooks or put liberal crap in them.
I don’t care anymore, Article II Sec. 1 was rendered moot by Precedent Obama and our entire political and judicial establishment.
It became ill with ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 and declined steadily until it took the wound in January 2009 that would prove mortal but it did not actually expire until November-January 2014.
Yes that is THE ONLY POWER over citizenship - to say who does and does not need naturalization. Those are the rules of naturalization. If a person is a citizen at birth, they do not need naturalization and thus are a natural born citizen. The Constitution DOES NOT LIMIT Congress in the area of citizenship. It give Congress the full authority to determine the rules of who is and is not a citizen at birth.
The whole thing has been distorted over the past several decades in relation to the anchor baby issue. When empERROR 0’barky was spawned, the law at the time prevented his mother from legally conveying citizenship to him.... She was 18 at the time.
My wife was born in Germany, and she’s a U.S. citizen.
Under the law, one or both parents (either naturalized or NBC) MUST have lived in the U.S. for a minimum of five years after their fourteenth birthday in order to legally convey citizenship to the child.
For instance, children born here to foreign diplomats are not automatically U.S. citizens because they are born here
“I thought you have to be “BORN” within the borders of the United States to be Prez..”
Hahaha! What would you do about the children of our service men and women? Do you honestly believe that our Framers would have defined Natural Born to be “within the borders of the United States?” Remember, if that were the case, not one citizen of the new nation would have been eligible to run as President.
By their own history, the Framers must have defined Natural Born Citizen to mmean something beyond “born in the borders of the United States.”
There have been many court rulings finding that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore he is a natural born citizen. Time and the courts will tell whether Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada changes the dynamic for him.
In 2008 Hawaii had a Republican Governor, Linda Lingle. Here is what she said regarding Obama’s place of birth:
“You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It’s been established. He was born here.”—Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii
A few examples:
Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
Voeltz v. Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—November 12, 2009
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Minor v. Happersett was removed from online searches in 2008. Of the case itself. It was restored after the election.
You underestimate the creativity (and perfidy) of the dems.
They could easily say --- halfway through 2016 --- that, you know, we were wrong, Obama shouldn't have been president, but too late now... but let's start fresh by saying no to Cruz.
Right. So how does that seal Obama’s records pre-presidency? And it applies only to records that may raise executive privlege issues, which certainly aren’t all of them.
You have more faith in the decency of Liberals than do I. I should not be surprised that once he wins the nomination the Liberals will start pushing court challenges.
It doesn't even matter if he wins in court because the damage will be done by the constant harping on the question of his eligibility. They will keep saying "Is Ted Cruz Eligible?" and they will keep implying that he is not.
By the time a court decision comes in, the public may be poisoned on him. The Liberals don't have to win in legal court, they only have to poison the public mind against him, and that might be all that is necessary to insure an election loss.
But I don't know for sure, it might turn out differently, but I always say if you prepare for the worst case scenario, you are often not disappointed.
G.W. Born 1732 in Va.
Can they change the meaning of "arms" (as in Keep and Bear) just by passing a law?
Every child born to TDY civilians working for our nation abroad who has a child while there has to fill out those papers.
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.