Cue the Ted Cruz birthers… again [Once more with feeling: "Is he a natural born citizen?"]

Hotair ^ | 03/23/2015 | Jazz Shaw

[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.

[OneWingedShark]

Let me ask you this, a citizen who was not a citizen at birth is called a naturalized citizen. What do you call a citizen who was born a citizen?

That depends: there are naturalization laws which set forth birth conditions as grounds for their citizenship, they are therefore naturalized citizens.

Again, just because they're naturalized at birth doesn't mean that they are natural born; and there is a huge flaw in your "confirmed by law" argument — this is that if it is a law passed by normal legislative action then it can be repealed and modified by normal legislative action, and if that is the case then it cannot be used to define natural born citizen because if that were the case then the legislature would be able to alter the constitution by its normal operations and this, in turn, would mean that the constraints proscribed by the constitution would be useless because the normal operation of the legislature could alter it at its whim.

[OneWingedShark]

See the first acts of Congress

Which would have been naturalization.

[Nero Germanicus]

You can keep quoting dicta from the Wong decision till the cows come home. That statement of Justice Gray is belied by subsequent and current U.S. law and real life example:
John McCain was not born in the United States yet if he had managed to accumulate 97 more electoral votes he would have become the 44th President of the United States without objection.
U.S. law sets forth who is a Citizen of the United States at Birth and that category is distinquished in law from who is a naturalized United States citizen.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't see Emmerich de Vattel mentioned either.

Now that's actually very funny. In order for you to appreciate the joke, I want to mention a few of the philosophers the founders thought worthy of study.

Locke, Rousseau , Burlamaqui , Vattel, Puffendorf, Rutherford, Wolf, Grotius, Montesquieu, Hobbes, and so on.

Do you know how many of them argued that people had a right to throw off the authority of a King? That people not only had a right, but a duty to declare Independence?

Only one. The only philosopher who didn't live under a Monarchy. The Only Philosopher who lived in a Republic, which was the only Republic in the world at the time.

Can you imagine any philosopher who lived under a King asserting a right to throw off Allegiance to a King? They would have been arrested! (And possibly worse.)

No, the only philosopher of Natural law that EVER said that People have a right to throw off their allegiance to a King was Emmerich de Vattel, who lived in Switzerland; The only Republic in existence at that time.

If you've studied this topic for any length of time, you find out that even the kooks over at "Obamaconspiracy" (Dr. Conspiracy's website) admit that the Declaration of Independence is heavily based on the writings of Emmerich de Vattel. There are ideas and concepts in it that are embodied in the works of no other man. The Declaration of Independence is pretty much the child of Vattel's influence, and without his putting the idea into the heads of our founders, we likely never would have rebelled against England. Again, no other philosopher of the time even suggested such a thing as Rebellion. None but Vattel.

[ConservingFreedom]

And it's been used to justify ignoring the Constitution in USSC rulings. (One of Scailia's blurbs justifying the excesses of the War on Drugs is a good illustration thereof — by that particular case's name eludes me at the moment, sorry.)

Are you thinking of this one? (Courtesy of Ken H.)

"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." --Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich v Gonzales

[chicken head]

answer to post 158: I would be issued a Kenyan birth Certificate- and i would be a foreigner even though i had american parents.. the soil you were born on is who you are..Natural Born means US soil

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, that is not true. See the first acts of Congress

You can tell me "that is not true", but it is from the same Supreme Court decision you cited yourself. It is from the "Wong Kim Ark" decision, which so many people think is the very last word on the subject.

You also don't seem to realize that the court is saying that an "act of congress" is "naturalization." Here, let me point out that part of the quote again.

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized ... by authority of Congress... as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens...

This statement directly refers to "acts of Congress" which confer citizenship on foreign born children as "naturalization."

The Supreme court is pretty much saying that if you aren't born inside the country, you are "naturalized. " I don't see any wiggle room in their statement.

[OneWingedShark]

"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." --Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich v Gonzales

No, that's not it; but that's a pretty impressive example of what I mean.
(Thank you for finding it.)

[DiogenesLamp]

You can keep quoting dicta from the Wong decision till the cows come home. That statement of Justice Gray is belied by subsequent and current U.S. law and real life example:

And you can keep saying that the exact same court is only correct when it agrees with you, but wrong when it doesn't. I have no interest in your inconsistent and subjectively biased opinion on the topic. You are intellectually dishonest, even to yourself I think.

[Nero Germanicus]

Except for the fact that in the very first naturalization law passed in Congress and signed by President Washington in 1790, the Founding Fathers made an exception: “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as Natural Born Citizens.”

[noinfringers2]

Question! What was the Raich v Gonzales case about?

[chicken head]

send me a link please— thank you

[chicken head]

see post 167

[taxcontrol]

Shake your fist and cry how it should be all you want. The reality is that the position you have adopted is not reality. If you don’t like it, get elected to office and try to change the Constitution or get appointed as a supreme court judge.

Until then, wish in one hand, spit in the other and see which one fills up first.

[DiogenesLamp]

You well know that the Madison quote is regarding the seating of a congressman (Smith of SC), NOT the president

And? His opinion on citizenship didn't change.

About this you are very much mistaken. James Madison's opinions did very much change in the case of James McClure.

Our Ambassador to France, John Armstrong declared that James McClure was *NOT* a citizen of the United States, despite the fact that he was born in Charleston South Carolina, because his father had not naturalized prior to his birth.

James Madison allowed the man remain in French Custody for nearly two years instead of countermanding Ambassador Armstrong, and it finally took the intervention of a Supreme Court Justice and a prominent Congressman to finally get the Madison Administration to regard him as a US Citizen and secure his release.

As a matter of fact, Someone writing as "Publius" (Madison's pen name when he wrote some of the Federalist Papers) and with a great deal of inside knowledge about the case, wrote letters to Newspapers in Virginia pointing out that James McClure was not a Citizen simply because he was born in South Carolina, that his citizenship status was very much dependent upon the Naturalization of his father.

Again, given how much inside knowledge of the case was displayed, the letter must have come from either Madison himself, or someone within the Madison administration with a very detailed knowledge of what went on between Madison and Ambassador Armstrong. He cites details that only someone in the State Department could possibly know.

In any case, Madison's refusal to take action to secure the release of James McClure from French custody speaks louder than his words when he was trying to secure the congressional seat for one of his political allies. (William Smith)

[Fledermaus]

They key words of NBC are “under the jurisdiction thereof...”.

[DiogenesLamp]

Shake your fist and cry how it should be all you want. The reality is that the position you have adopted is not reality.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but this issue has nothing to do with me. It's about what is the truth, and what is false. I merely point out what is true. That the truth doesn't hold very much sway anymore is sad.

If you don’t like it, get elected to office and try to change the Constitution or get appointed as a supreme court judge.

Yes, it's too much to ask that something which is objectively true can be recognized as such. Nowadays we know what is "true" because "authorities" inform us as to what they have decided they shall make "true."

"We have always been at war with Eurasia."

[noinfringers2]

There is so much extraneous and deceptive opinions as to the birth requirements for POTUSA at this point in our history that confusion abounds. It is too bad that so many people with their various opinions did not come forth when Obama was running and elected. So much of the conflicting opinions do not stem from actual words or history but instead from personal goals. Your pointing out the fuller context of Wong Kim Ark is a remarkable/notable example of such.

[DiogenesLamp]

Perhaps you are familiar with the term “semantics”. Saying the same thing in a different way. But you are missing the point. You have been show how both Congress and SCOTUS have ruled counter to your assertion that it takes two combined conditions to be the exclusive requirement of natural born citizen. Your assertion is thus demonstrably false.

If Congress and SCOTUS rule that homosexual marriage is "normal", are you going to accept it?

My mind works differently. I don't first go to Congress or SCOTUS to decide what I think about something. I make up my own mind.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’d be happy to vote for Cruz. He is the most conservative candidate we could hope for.

I’m never voting for Jebster.

And I agree on both counts.