WaPo (Op-Ed): Ted Cruz Not Eligible

Washington Post ^ | January 12, 2016 | Mary Brigid McManamon

[Behind the Blue Wall]

Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of President." The concept of "natural born" comes from the common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept's definition. On this subject, the common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," while aliens are "such as are born out of it."

. . .

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator's parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth.

[nopardons]

Okay, Doodle, would YOU take as “GOSPEL”/law, what our government tells those who are studying to become Naturalized Citizens or not ?

[Mollypitcher1]

You have had every single item in the Bill of Rights given up.
.........................................................
Seems to me the Second Amendment is Alive and Well and it is because people have FOUGHT to defend it.

[Political Junkie Too]

What about parents away on military assignment? People out of the country for vacation?

It's a question of intent. Are they abroad temporarily or are they establishing foreign permanent residency?

That's what's interesting about the McClure case. Born in South Carolina to a father who later naturalized and moved the family out of the country with questionable intent to return (it was 1811, after all). At that time, naturalizing ex post facto naturalized minor children, too. However, overseas his naturalization either wasn't recognized or it was revoked leading up to the War of 1812.

-PJ

[Mollypitcher1]

I know. I was backing up your statement.

[FirstFlaBn]

That was before the election of Senators was removed from the states themselves and given to the voters.

So you're saying the XVII Amendment changed the workings of the Electoral College?

You're very lucky there's not a literacy test.

[Mollypitcher1]

Then quit mouthing off and prove your point. So far all you have is a bad opinion.

[Cboldt]

-- It's a question of intent. --

Understood. I was just thinking about how those factors mess up citizenship charts! All sorts of footnotes, exceptions, etc.

[Faith Presses On]

I can’t see how a provision that was meant to reasonably keep out foreign influences due to a person’s birth, and was left intentionally vague so the public in close cases could make a judgment call on it for themselves, would out-of-hand disallow from being President someone accidentally being born in Canada because of their parents’ weekend trip.

That’s really looking at a law to the exclusion of its purpose, and as though it’s trying to exclude everyone it possibly can.

But it might exclude everyone it possibly could, and still a candidate could have been subject to a strong foreign influence in many other ways, while still being “natural born.”

From everything known about this provision, it wasn’t meant or expected to be the silver bullet for eliminating foreign influences.

It was meant to clearly disqualify people in obvious cases, mostly that they weren’t born here but were immigrants that naturalized. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an obvious recent example of someone who there was talk of amending the Constitution for so he could run.

But the fact that Cruz was an American citizen at birth, and that so much hair-splitting has to go into claiming that he was instantaneously naturalized at birth, and that there is so much debate about this and support for him being natural-born, tells me that he’s eligible.

He meets the minimum legal qualifications at least, murky as those are, and is eligible, and so voters and the public at large will have to decide if they think his circumstances impair his ability to be President.

So keep in mind:

1. His eligibility question has nothing to do with the black-and-white definition of “natural born,” which eliminates people like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

2. His eligibility falls into the gray area about “natural-born citizen” intentionally left in the Constitution itself.

3. It’s quite a matter for academic debate, and scholars come down on both sides. I also see, for instance, that PolitiFact argues that he’s eligible. In this case, a good clear argument for him being ineligible just doesn’t exist. Hence, he’s eligible.

[wardaddy]

I love Cruz

But I’m ambivalent when i look at the historical origin and intent

I can see how folks ask for clarification

I’m gonna ask two smart posters

[wardaddy]

I love Cruz

But I’m ambivalent when i look at the historical origin and intent

I can see how folks ask for clarification

I’m gonna ask two smart posters

[jwalsh07]

You’re a moron. You can’t even spell Vattel. And you can not get it through your thick skull that the Supreme Law of the Land is a triumverate that doesn’t include Swiss philosopher kings.

[nomad]

Well I`m not arguing a theological view, nor a living document, but a basic Individualist interpretation of the Ninth Amendment as well as a refusal to blindly bow to any Common Law that anchors the concept of individual sovereignty. Call it interpreted if you will but that illustrates an interesting point someone calling themselves DMZ (check my in forum) made on the issue of interpretation of rights.

Now the Nineteenth Amendment only gave women the right to vote, it did not directly confer any other rights. Well there are enough references to the implication of other rights in the Constitution, however, the Originalist and Common Law interpretations held women to very limited standards of rights, correct? Including the transfer of nationality via the male bloodling only, incidentally that also included property rights, tort rights, even something as basic as equal treatment under the law, many rights now enjoyed. Well if you believe in inumerated rights only, then, can I guess you`re a women(Mollypitcher1), do you posses only the right to vote and none else?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

You're a moron

Says the drooling idiot who practically admits he has no clue what he's talking about.

[Faith Presses On]

And what if one of them isn’t?

There are a lot of people out there, especially in our increasingly globalized and mobile society, who are American citizens but might work or go to school for short periods in other countries, and have children while they’re there. So all those children are ineligible for President, while children of illegal aliens will be eligible.

I think people are missing the point that in cases like Arnold Schwarzenegger’s, he legally can’t run, as the Constitution makes clear.

But in a case like Cruz’s, the Constitution really leaves the people to be the “Supreme Court.” It’s public reaction that will determine if he’s eligible or not, oddly enough. And that’s the way it should be, because his being born an American citizen but in Canada, and living his first four years there before coming here, is on the line and something the America people, not a judge, should decide the significance of. So what we say about it will decide it.

[jwalsh07]

The issue is non justiciable and a political question that will be answered at the polls. The original intent was to keep citizens with divided loyalties from becoming POTUS. Obama has shattered that intent and anybody here that thinks Cruz has less loyalty to the Constitution than the Kelo loving Trump is out of their damn minds.

[jwalsh07]

Lol. Learn how to spell your idols name and get back to me you statist pos.

[Cboldt]

I understand your attachment to Cruz, and respect it too. I'm sure there are many many many naturalized citizens that would be superior presidents. "Converts" are often the most protective of their new heritage.

Whether or not you believe me, I'm not looking at this in an effort to knock out Cruz, and as my posts show, I don't see any risk to his candidacy based on the constitution. The constitution says whatever people want it to say, that day. "Situational con law," a form of situational ethics. It's in vogue.

I'm interested both from a con law point of view, and a human/mob behavior point of view, as well as watching and marveling at how effectively the elites and message-makers are able to put false belief in people's heads. Not disparage the people, we're all human and susceptible to persuasion, even to a false conclusion.

-- It's quite a matter for academic debate --

It is indeed. I find the academic question to be easy to resolve. The fact that it is presented as "difficult" or "unsettled" is a tool to manipulate public belief.

500 years ago, most everybody believed that the sun orbits the earth. Today, lots of people believe there is such a thing as "global warming" and that it caused by human activity. I mean they really and truly believe. And as far as it has an effect on politics, belief is all that matters. The truth is (or at least can be) irrelevant.

[nopardons]

Anchor babies are NOT eligible to be president nor VEEP!

Cruz's father did NOT become and American citizen until 2005; ergo he is NOT eligible. Neither are Rubio nor Jindal! Yet all three men ARE citizens.

It is NOT up to the populace to decide who is and who isn't eligible as we are/should be a nation of laws.

Obama, likewise, no matter WHERE he was born, was NEVER eligible to be president.

[nopardons]

Would you accept the answer from me?

[EternalVigilance]

In this case, a good clear argument for him being ineligible just doesn't exist.

Sure it does.

You can either be a natural born citizen, by virtue of nature, or you can be a citizen naturalized by virtue of statute law. You can't be both, because the two things are mutually exclusive.

And it is quite clear that Senator Cruz is a citizen solely by virtue of the generous provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the controlling statute in force when he was born in 1970.

Clear enough?