Posted on 01/12/2016 6:10:48 AM PST by rebuildus
The Founding Fathers never explicitly defined the term "Natural Born Citizen." So we are left to use our common sense, and search the phrase's origins.
To take it back as far as it will go requires us to look at the book of Deuteronomy. Israel demanded a king, and God gave them one, but he gave them some parameters:
You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman (Deuteronomy 17:15).
The point is loyalty. Where are the loyalties of the "king"?
In the case of Senator Cruz, knowing that he was born of an American mother, and a father who chose to leave the country of his birth to live in America, it's fair to say that Ted's parents' loyalty was to the United States.
This is the central question, for the core of all law is its spirit, or intent.
The only weak spot I see in this situation is, because both Ted's father and Ted himself came to America from another country, I can certainly see that they would have a soft spot for immigrants, which may cause Ted's immigration policies to be more lenient, than if they had been born in the U.S.
That being said, on the primary question--loyalty--Ted appears rock solid. And I've seen nothing in his life and political career to indicate otherwise.
You probably have US citizenship two or three ways. One by refence to any state law on the subject of citizenship, coupled with Article IV, Section 2; and the other by the 14th amendment coupled with being born subject to the jurisdiction of the US. It happens that there is a US statute that repeats the words of the 14th amendment, but if that statute was missing, the 14th amendment would still be there.
Your citizenship does not depend on an act of Congress, and you had it from birth any way you slice it, born on the soil, AND passed from your parents.
It has a very simple two letter answer.
“Canada is part of America, so yes, he’s an American citizen.”
That is complete nonsense. Cruz is an American citizen because of the naturalization laws passed by Congress.
Our Founders bequeathed the identifier “American” to citizens of the United States only. When George Washington was preparing the crossing of the Delaware, he issued orders that only Americans were to stand watch. There was no confusion about what he meant.
In the history books, when “American” is used, there is no confusion about who it refers to, and it is definitely not a Canadian.
That just confuses a discussion that aims to distinguish between the constitution, and acts of congress. Is the constitution an act of congress? Do I need to use "act of congress" rather than "statute" to make the statement "citizenship depends on a statute" into an unambiguous statement? I mean, how pedantic do you want to be? I'll comply with your dictate in that regard.
-- Citizenship has never been a Natural Right, it has always been conferred by the State under statutes or decrees. --
Right. The constitution does that for US citizenship. Article IV, Sec. 2; and 14th amendment.
-- Congress has the power and the authority to define whether or not Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen --
Where in the constitution is that power conferred? As to citizenship, the only grant of authority I see, to Congress, is to make rule of naturalization.
-- Congress will be given the opportunity when the electoral college declares Ted Cruz to be the elected president and congress is given the opportunity to certify the election. --
Agreed.
-- Anyone want to take a bet that they would undo the presidential election based on this obscure phrase in the Constitution - the same Constitution that granted no rights - Natural or otherwise - to millions of slaves living in the United States at the time of it's passage? --
Nope. i expect Congress and the courts to violate the constitution, accompanied with a certain amount of handwaving.
“Quite the twisted use of religion.”
No, it is common sense. No more religious than “Thou shall not steal”. No one is going to tell a judge that he can’t be sentenced for bank robbery because enforcing the law violates the separation of church and state.
For my part, Hillary Clinton is ample proof that being born in the USA of two citizen parents has NOTHING to do with loyalty to the USA or any belief in its principles.
On average, naturalized citizens are more loyal to the USA than born citizens. The NBC clause was a stupid idea, but it is there and a naturalized citizen cannot become President without a constitutional amendment. Ted Cruz, however, was born a US citizen. That pretty much ends it for me, because there are only two categories of citizens found in the Constitution - born and naturalized. Everyone is one or the other.
You can’t look at it that way. You need to take the name Ted Cruz out of the picture.
Use another one.
How about Hillary Clinton. Put the exact same parameters on her.
Or you could use Queen Noor’s son who is going to Harvard. There are mixed opinions of whether she gave up her American Citizenship. Pretend she didn’t. Do you want an Arab Prince as your POTUS?
The reason it’s a really good question goes beyond the simple and correct answer. It’s a really good question because it leads to asking where, in the constitution, is plain old citizenship defined.
It isn’t. The first Congress defined it and under the terms of the statute passed by the founders themselves, Ted Cruz would be a natural born citizen.
thanks
Thank you for taking the time and expending the energy to inform me.
Does the Naturalization Act of 1790 provide a complete definition of natrual born citizen? Obviously not. I mean, as far as defintions go, it is mostly incomplete. It doesn't say anything about people born in one of the several states.
And what about the time between ratification of the act and signing into law of the act of 1790? Nobody could be born a citizen?
I mean, I understand your conclusion. That the constitution finds a child born abroad to a citizen mother to naturally be born a US citizen. But you have to use the act of 1790 to get there. I can get to "citizenship" using just the constitution, including citizenship that attaches at birth.
I am starting to wonder if half the people around here have lost their ever-lovin’ marbles.
Every single one of us, who is over the age of 25 has known since grade school that you had to be born on US soil to American parents to be president. This was part of Am History curriculum from the beginning of time. Every one of us.
Which is exactly why the Obama thing was so controversial: he had an American mom (in the weeds, but not old enough to confer citizenship, but let that go) but his place of birth was UNCERTAIN.
They had to pass a special thing in the Senate, for that loser McCain, because his birthplace was elsewhere, even though his family was active military, stationed abroad.
Obama was questioned because his PLACE of birth was murky.
This is exactly why Cruz’ birthplace matters.
No one is suggesting that Cruz has some affinity or loyalty to Canada, no one is saying that he doesn’t love America. I certainly would never utter either thing. And a constitutional expert such as Cruz knows everything I just said and would be candid about it, provided he didn’t have selfish ambitions.
But I know this: If I were Dewhurst, and the guy responsible for background research still worked for me, he’d be fired by lunch today. Because he missed something BIG.
The notion that Ted Cruz ran for the US Senate in Texas without disclosing that he was, at least, a dual citizen of Canada.....contemporaneously.....is almost shocking.
Fairly incompetent by Dewhurst’s team and pretty damn brazen by Cruzes team.
Under current law Cruz is considered a citizen at birth. They don’t use the term ‘natural born citizen’. However, without ever having said so in current law, it appears they mean that citizen at birth to be equal to natural born citizen. So be it. As you say, Congress is given the power to legislate these things.
I do think that a state can challenge Cruz’s status, and my gut tells me another candidate would also have standing to do so. They would have to do so BEFORE any election, because I agree with you that no one is going to try to overturn an election. I doubt the electoral college would go there, but the truth is that they are a group of delegations from each of our states anyway.
So ultimately this really does fall back on different states and it falls back on them right now before we get to November’s election. If ANY state would challenge it, I would expect it to be California. They are the largest with the most electoral college votes.
Ted Cruz’s father was not loyal to the United States.
He left it in the raging portion of the Vietnam war and took on Canadian citizenship long before he took US citizenship. He did not return until the Vietnam War was over.
His son was born to a man who could not have been more clear at the time that he did not care if his son was a Canadian.
The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".
No. SCOTUS rhetoric and legislative history is pretty clear that all citizenship to those born abroad is a form of naturalization. There is case law that says so.
Popular legal analysis, including that published in law review (Katyal/Clement, and several others) doesn't cite those references, and can't if it wants to sustain the illusion that the question is unsettled, or settled in favor of Cruz.
Cruz has been certified qualified in all the election papers, and that is enough to allow the election to proceed.
I can't imagine any court or Congress "coming clean" at this stage of the game. Cruz is deemed NBC, and the actual fact of the matter is legally irrelevant except as a point of academic curiosity. The uncertainty will erode some votes from his column, but not very many.
EVERYTHING that has to do with Cruz's father is irrelevant to finding citizenship. His citizenship passes from his mother.
The points you raise are political, vote-getting, vote-taking sorts of things. Cruz is by far not the only "all-American" naturalized citizen, to use the vernacular.
Thank you!
He left it in the raging portion of the Vietnam war and took on Canadian citizenship long before he took US citizenship.
*************
I’m not sure what your inference is regarding the Vietnam War.
True he went to Canada but he wasn’t subject to the draft as he
wasn’t a US citizen, correct?
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.