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 Cruzs eligibility. Of course hes eligible, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. Hes 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. Cruzs 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.
I know the difference between obiter dictum and the holding in a Supreme Court decision.
I find it highly offensive that anyone would try to deny natural born citizenship status to the children born abroad of U.S. military personnel, risking their very lives outside of the United States, just because someone else doesn’t like Obama or Cruz being eligible. Anyone who acquires a “Consular Report of Birth Abroad” becomes a natural born citizen and needs no naturalization.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156216.pdf
I have on my side of the issue 117 years worth of subsequent court rulings. If you can share with us any examples of persons who were born outside of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who were denied natural born citizen/United States Citizen At Birth status, I would love to hear about them.
Here are the rules that are used to determine exactly who qualifies as a United States Citizen At Birth and therefore does not need naturalization:
http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html
And if Congress changes it's mind again, will the definition of "natural citizen" change with it?
I regard this notion as peculiar, because it seems as if Congress can re-write the constitution at will. They pass a new law, we get a new meaning.
I don't think that is how it is supposed to work. The meanings are supposed to be rigid, until changed by amendment. I don't like flexibility in our constitution. I like it to be rigid, like Iron, so that it's meaning doesn't change by the whim of courts or congress.
I want changes in it's meaning to be difficult, such as the Amendment process. I fear for us all if they can simply redefine words to mean something different.
I understand. Just saying do not expect the rules of logic, common sense, fairness or even legality to prevail.
When you are in a boxing match, and your opponent is using brass knuckles, you need to use brass knuckles too.
To insist on standing on principle while your opponent has an advantage will more than likely result in a win for your opponent.
Ted Cruz is one of our best possible candidates, and if he wins the nomination, i'm going to work for and support him. If anyone says "he's not a natural born citizen", I will respond "Neither was Obama."
It would be nice if we all followed the rules, but since others won't, we shouldn't be constrained by them either.
Yeah, I hear ya.
This is a rumor that got started on the internet and simply will not die. Some Liberal troll faked up a Panamanian birth certificate with John McCain's name on it and posted it on the internet along with the allegation that McCain was born off base.
This is not true. McCain was born in the Coco Solo Naval base in the base hospital. I've seen the documents. The Washington Post did a rebuttal of these claims, and they posted the Hospital records from the Coco Solo Naval base, including the name of the Dr who delivered McCain. They also address the claim that "the hospital wasn't built yet." The documents they have show that it was and that it was operating.
That homosexuals have a right to marry? Do you agree with the courts about this? I don't.
I personally don't think something is true just because the courts say it is. I happen to be able to think for myself, and I have a strong suspicion I am better at thinking and analyzing than they are.
I am certainly not impressed much by what the courts think about things nowadays. They all seem to have a screw loose.
The Framers established a process to amend their thinking on any and all constitutional issues. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has become the definitive constitutional interpretation of who is a U.S. citizen. Consistent with that, Congress has passed bills and presidents have signed them into law that even further define citizenship. The Supreme Court has upheld those laws as constitutional.
In 1874 the Supreme Court said that; “The Constitution does not say in words who shall be ‘Natural Born Citizens.’ Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”— Minor v Happersett
“Elsewhere” has turned out to be the bills flowing from the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause that were passed by Congress and signed into law by presidents and upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court when challenged.
I agree. I'm sick of hearing this lie being continuously spread, and I don't even like John McCain.
You still havent 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!
I'll answer that. *IF* the correct meaning of "natural born citizen" is based on the principles articulated by Emmerich de Vattel, then his wisdom also comes into play on this particular topic. Here is the word right from the horses' mouth.
This seems eminently sensible to me.
I agree. I'm sick of hearing this lie being continuously spread, and I don't even like John McCain.
You still havent 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!
I'll answer that. *IF* the correct meaning of "natural born citizen" is based on the principles articulated by Emmerich de Vattel, then his wisdom also comes into play on this particular topic. Here is the word right from the horses' mouth.
This seems eminently sensible to me.
The history has always been available for anybody with the inclination to do the research. I was amazed the first few times I studied a legal issue "in depth," and found that the courts were fabricating the contents of precedent. If courts do it (to achieve the outcome they want) it should be no surprise that the general public does it even more.
And the ones with ears plugged tightest tend to be the most strident defenders, of the outcome they want. Same tactics as courts, cherry-pick from precedent, change the burden of proof, and even redefine the meaning of words.
We are drowning in an ocean of bad opinions based on bad facts and bad thinking. The worst of it is the tendency of some people to falsely equate one thing with another.
It is too bad that so many people with their various opinions did not come forth when Obama was running and elected.
Oh, they did, but many of them were people with opinions based on bad facts and bad thinking. They drowned out the reasonable and sensible opinions with their noise.
So much of the conflicting opinions do not stem from actual words or history but instead from personal goals.
And that is the bottom line. A lot of people have opinions based on what they *WANT* to be true, not on what is demonstrably true.
Your pointing out the fuller context of Wong Kim Ark is a remarkable/notable example of such.
I'd like to take the credit for spotting that, but I think it was Ray76 that put me on to it. I just noticed how blatantly it contradicts a lot of people's opinion on the subject. People don't like being confronted with a piece of evidence that contradicts what they wish to believe. Notice the resistance to it's obvious meaning that some people are expressing?
I'm simply saying that there is NO American court that would rule against Cruz's eligibility.
As we have seen, with respect to gay marriage, there are Courts that are sympathetic and those that are not.
It's a well-established principle that Cruz, having been born an American citizen to an American mother in Canada, is therefore Natural Born, and that's why I don't think there is a single court that will ever rule otherwise.
It's simply a cut-and-dried issue, and I totally fail to understand why any conservative would attempt to make an anything of it.
IMHO, the notion that Ted Cruz isn't an NBC basically brings one into the tinfoil hat realm...
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that "No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President."
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The "Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization", enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, "...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
We don't care. We aren't interested in the gas emissions from the courts. We are interested in what is objectively TRUE.
Both are fallacies.
Yeah, funny that. It's as if people didn't want accurate facts out there while confusion was being sown about Obama's "natural citizen" status.
But But I'm all done with nut cases. See ya.
The courts disagree about all sorts of common sense issues. They think Homosexuals have a "right" to get married, have a right to civil protection (we used to hang them in 1787 and lock them up in 1957) think the 14th amendment created a "right" to abortion, and tossed religion out of the schools, and that farmers don't have the right to grow their own wheat to feed their own cows.
You might as well say "Let's ask BOZO the CLOWN what he thinks!!!!" The courts are as ridiculous as Bozo the Clown, but not nearly as funny.
"Hi boys and girls! Me and my friends run your Federal courts!!!"
Well unless that Congressional statute was written on July 4, 1776, then I think you are mistaken. I believe US Citizens have existed a long time before that statute ever came about.
In one of their first acts, they specifically stated who was to be considered naturally born and specifically stated that a person born abroad to US parents was a naturally born citizen.
You mean that one entittled "Naturalization act of 1790"?
That specifically says it was a naturalization act, doesn't it?
Obviously that means that it is *NOT* a naturalization act, Cause if it was, they would have used some other term than the word "naturalization."
Everybody knows that when you say "naturalization" you mean "natural born." I understand why people get so confused about this, because "naturalization" sounds exactly like "natural born." I can't even tell the difference when I say it out loud.
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.