Posted on 01/12/2016 10:09:44 AM PST by 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.
EXACTLY right!
Who is the gatekeeper? I've read that either the GOP or Cruz certified each and every candidate as qualified, to the various state election boards. The NH heard and rejected a challenge to Cruz's eligibility.
So, for purposes of ballot access, the gatekeeper is the election board.
The constitution anticipates that the public could elect an unqualified candidate, and provides for actions to take in case the president elect is not qualified.
That's the way the system works in principle.
In practice, the system will capitulate to public belief. I agree with you, the fuss and furor is moot, except insofar as it affects individual voter's action in the voting booth.
I am responding to your dismissive comment about Emmerich de Vattel. You cannot dismiss him so easily when the framers and federal courts thru the years continually reference him. Yes, the only supreme law of the land is the plain text and common law decisions derived from applying the constitution. But the framers did obtain inspiration for the constitution from many legal and philosophical sources. They quoted them often, and it is useful to consult them when attempting to discern original intent.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html1.
The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,
"And 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
Congress' authority to define these matters was repeatedly affirmed by SCOTUS, including in Rogers v Bellei, 1970, in which cause for revocation of natural born citizenship due to lack of subsequent residency in the US was reaffirmed.
Trum is right. He needs Cruz to be considered eligible so he can have him as veep.
No, he isn't.
ANYONE is now eligible.
No, they're not.
You are fighting for your country. Your constitution isn't followed anymore. Better fight to win
You should be fighting for the Constitution.
No, they are not.
Carole King - You make me feel like a Natural Citizen...
Ted was born in 1970, when his father was a CANADIAN CITIZEN ! American law says that Cruz is NOT eligible and the more you and other say that, the stupider you all look!
“You should be fighting for the Constitution. “
I am. You just think arguing about something no one gives a care about is going to help you win. How’s all that losing going for ya? Huh? Come on, do you really think anyone but Cruz will fight for your constitution??
I’ve posted this before, so here it is again: Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, Clinton were ALL NBC, and they screwed this country. So how’s that NBC working out for you, because it isn’t working for me?!
.
.
You had to dig VERY deep and far backc for that Cruz comment.
Says a lot good about Cruz and a lot on how much you dislike him.
Obviously this is NOT well known; however, I do ! :-)
I appreciate your experiences but allegiance as you describe it differs completely from the concepts in colonial times. Then you owed allegiance from birth, it wasn’t about your choice.
If a foreign nation had a claim on your allegiance then that was simply too great a risk for the one office of President. You could renounce your foreign citizenship, you could naturalize, you could be a born citizen based on statute and that was fine as a citizen, you had all the rights of a citizen except for qualifying for President.
The more you understand the colonial era and the thinking of the founders you see how, in their minds, this made sense.
Does it make sense today? You might think not, but the current usurper has, due to his foreign allegiance, done more damage then anyone could imagine. So yes it makes sense today and true patriots must insist upon it.
Respectfully, ...
>>>I’m sure there’s some truth to the claim that this is just a political attack, but for me it does actually go much deeper.
It is entirely a political attack in that politics is what motivates both Trump, sadly, and the left. It would be disappointing but necessary if after all the flagrant law and rule-breaking from them, including from the Hillary and Bill, Planned Parenthood and the IRS, we have to concede Ted Cruz is ineligible. But I am firmly convinced he isn’t, and that we are only hurting every real cause by taking this up.
>>>I am a firm believer in the Constitution and the rule of law and although it’s an admittedly murky issue to define, at the same time it involves the highest levels of our government.
I’m a firm believer in the Constitution, too, but I don’t read it Biblically, either, as if it’s infallible. There were a couple of pastors back then who publicly questioned its lack of focus on God, and it’s been used by secular humanists as a Trojan Horse to impose secular humanism. So I will not revere it as divine revelation because it isn’t. But it is likely that a government on this earth would have a very hard time to do any better than this, and so far as it doesn’t require disobeying God, I observe the Constitution. And I also believe in the rule of law.
But again, we have to remind ourselves that the murkiness is the law, and not impose what’s not there. If those who wrote the Constitution only wanted to make black-and-white situations like Arnold Schwarzenegger’s, and go no further, then that murkiness is the law. This IS the highest office in government, yet they didn’t define NBC and we have to ask why. And we have to conclude that even then, it would have been a too complex matter for them to get into, with innumerable possible scenarios. They trusted that the campaign process would eliminate someone whose allegiances were elsewhere or doubtful in close cases. There would be no easy formula given to do so, because there wasn’t one. Even then, with a country that had been under Britain, and had immigrants coming from all over, and the country growing and changing all the time, the ultimate judgment on someone’s allegiances would have to be made by looking at that person personally. NBC was only a start.
>>>Furthermore I happen to also believe that a big part of the problems we face derive from people at the highest levels of government with divided loyalties. Enforcing this one rule passed down to us from the Founders is then a key part of everything that’s important to me in politics.
I believe in enforcing this rule, but only so far as it was meant to be enforced, so far as we can tell. I’ve been concerned at times by the talk of amending the Constitution so that this or that person who is a naturalized citizen can run. I don’t agree with that at all, and how breezily people dismiss a foreign birth, citizenship and upraising.
But I think in cases where we are taking out a microscope and looking ever more closely at it, like this one, and people come out on different sides of the matter regardless of party, then I think we’re taking things too far.
People who say Cruz isn’t eligible aren’t going by the law but their interpretation of it, and I think to prevent someone from doing something, you have to have a clearer legal reason than to allow someone to do something. And such a judgment should correspond to common sense where the matter isn’t black and white legally.
For instance, people from time to time do say that someone foreign born is a good American and would make a good President, if he could legally run. Whether that’s true or not, a common sense interpretation of the person says they’d be a patriotic candidate and President, but the black-and-white Constitution clearly says they can’t run. And we understand the reasons that the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits, which is the purpose of the B&W Constitutional provision.
But in the case of someone with at least one American parent, and American citizenship at birth so they never go a naturalization process, the case against them and for preventing foreign allegiances just isn’t there, the murkiness of the law doesn’t favor preventing them, and the campaign process favors letting the voters decide the significance of their circumstances. What outside the possibility of technical Constitutional ineligibility, in a common sense view of his life, corresponds to him having a lack of allegiance to the United States?
Well put.
Marco Rubio is close to being in that position, and he’s running.
Ultimately with no legal vetting process, and almost no standing to challenge a candidate put forward by a party, where would the check against them come from. Only possibly from other candidates, but there’s no guarantee of that.
Cruz has allegiance from birth from being an American citizen at birth.
And yes, I understand the colonial concerns, and since those concerns would always be there in some form, there is a provision on it in the Constitution. But it was intentionally left vague. That might seem odd since President was the highest office of the new land, with the highest qualifications, but obviously those writing the Constitution didn’t feel like they could draw any further distinctions for close cases given all the many possible scenarios someone’s life might have, even then. If they were more specific, they could easily disqualify many patriotic people while not at all disqualifying many others who weren’t patriotic.
Wait a minute, wait a minute....I thought his father was jailed for supporting Castro.
I don't know if that is your paraphrase or not, but a couple comments about it.
The case labeled Bellei a naturalized citizen. Anybody who reads the case will see that. SCOTUS held that Congress had the power to revoke citizenship of a naturalized citizen. The dissent (it was a 5-4 case) argued that Congress power of naturalization is exhausted once it grants citizenship, and that it was unconstitutional to strip naturalized citizen Bellei of his citizenship.
Taking the paraphrase literally, does it strike you as odd that Congress can revoke natural born citizenship? Where does one find THAT power in the constitution? I mean, can Congress write a law that says all citizens born before April 1, 1958, are no longer citizens?
They didn't define the little baby Jesus either, but they mentioned him in the Constitution.
In both cases, I guess they figured everyone knew what they were talking about.
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.