Replies

I’ve read all the cases you cite, and none of them indicate Ted Cruz is not eligible, or that the US follows Vattel.

For example: “Minor v. Happersett declares a natural born citizen as one who is born on the soil to citizen parents”.

Wrong. It said that was one type of NBC, but they had no need to consider the issue further so they did not.

“1898 Wong Kim Ark uses the 14th Amendment to declare that WKA is a citizen from birth, but not a “natural born citizen”.

Wrong again. They spent much of the first few sections showing why WKA did meet the standard for a natural born citizen. WKA includes the longest and most detailed discussion of the meaning of NBC, and it clearly states:

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality...

...It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

Wong Kim Ark clearly met their test of NBC.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 makes it clear that a “native citizen” and a “natural born citizen” are the same thing.

None of these cases address the question, “Does NBC include children born to US citizens abroad?” However, many cases address the number of classes of US citizen, and there are only two: those born citizens, and those naturalized.

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) equates native born and natural born:

“”We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, Â§ 1...

...This statute proceeds on the impermissible assumption that naturalized citizens as a class are less reliable, and bear less allegiance to this country than do the native born. This is an assumption that is impossible for us to make. Moreover, while the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, it does forbid discrimination that is “so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.” Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497. A native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship. Living abroad, whether the citizen be naturalized or native born, is no badge of lack of allegiance, and in no way evidences a voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance. It may indeed be compelled by family, business, or other legitimate reasons.”

There has never been a US Supreme Court case dealing with a person born abroad, who is born a US citizen, but who is running for President.

Worst case, if Ted Cruz was elected President and the US Supreme Court decided he was not qualified, his Vice President would take over. However, anyone who reads law cases involving elections knows courts are extremely reluctant to overturn elections. To do so, when the weight of evidence strongly indicates Ted Cruz does qualify would, IMHO, be just cause for armed rebellion. The courts will not risk that.