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.

[Politicalkiddo]

Not if their parent(s) aren’t citizens at the time of their birth.

[Yashcheritsiy]

“He’s not a natural born citizen,” BUT

He “was naturalized at birth.”

He is just “not a natural born citizen” because of his politics.

No.....

"Natural born" and "naturalized at birth" are not the same thing.

The term "naturalised" indicates a person receiving their citizenship per the uniform rules of naturalisation established by Congress per their constitutional power to do so. It describes a person who does not "naturally" (i.e. natural born) acquire citizenship via natural law (i.e. both parents are citizens, born on US soil via the common law principle of jus soli) but is instead declared by US law to have been extended the rights and privileges of our citizenship. Sometimes this happens to an adult who immigrates here. Sometimes it happens with a child born in circumstances such as Cruz's - but the end result is that BOTH have their citizenship via statute - even if the one has it from birth.

Like it or not, Ted Cruz is not "natural born" as common and natural law describe it. He was "naturalised," which means he is not qualified constitutionally.

[Yosemitest]

Take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States and our Founding Fathers.

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Also notice that the Supreme Court has backed up that definition!

See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV)

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supports
that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

So the statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

She needs one of these:

[nomad]

IF Trump is hanging his hat on this concept, (please refer to my previous answer), then he can kiss my vote good bye.

Even if he does win the nomination, I`ll never vote for any candidate that places other laws and the concepts of them, over our Natural Law right to make our own laws and their concepts.

I base this on the heart of Natural Law`s practical implementation, the right of the Sovereign Citizen to lend some of that sovereignty in a compact with the state, thereby creating a Republic based on their own unique interpretations of law.

[FreeReign]

That’s utter nonsense. Our legal system is based on English common law. We imported countless concepts from the English common law into our own system. Sure there are significant ways in which our constitutional system of government differed and differs from theirs, but those are the exceptions that prove the general rule that we inherited the English common law system and continue to use it to this day.

No not at all. We only look outside our Constitution to determine definitions of phrases in the Constitution that are ambiguous.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Why is it so hard to understand that if you are born to an American, you are an American citizen from Birth?

Nobody is questioning Ted Cruz's citizenship.

What's being questioned is whether he is "natural born" or "naturalised." Common law and US statute say he is naturalised.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

[lucky american]

Quit posting this crap. You give them hits on their websites and that means money in their pockets. Please stop posting their drivel.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

There’s no legal category of citizenship called “naturalized at birth but not natural born”.

Yes, there is. If you derive your citizenship by reference to a naturalization statute, then you are naturalized, not natural born. If you derive your citizenship by virtue not of a statute, but common law understandings of how citizenship is determined, then you are a natural born citizen.

For example, if someone is born in the U.S., what statute determines whether they are a citizen or not?

[KC_Lion]

The fact that we have Birth Tourism and those Hospitals are handing out Citizenship Papers to those Mexican kids tells me everything I need to know Natural Born etc Laws.

Ted Cruz is Edible for the Presidency. Period. And Just because Trump brought it up doesn't mean everyone has to rush to defend this nonsense.

Would anyone say any different of Ted Cruz if Trump wasn't in the Race and it was Hillary Bringing this up?

[eastforker]

No one is questioning that he is an American Citizen, he was also a Canadian citizen up to about 18 months ago. You are aware of that correct?

You see he was also born to a canadian of cuban decent, his dad.

[kidd]

Summary of article:

Ted Cruz was naturalized at birth, but was not natural born.

Wapo logic

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

The Act was amended to extend the time for naturalized citizens being in the US to 5 years.

The words were indeed removed, exactly as the article states.

and fatherhood did not appear in the act or the Constitution.

It appears in the definition of "Natural Born." The founders didn't bother to define it inside the Constitution because it already had a definition that was well known.

[Buckeye McFrog]

True or not, there is enough here for a Lib jurist on the Federal Bench to issue an injunction against Cruz being sworn-in.

Up for a little Obama Overtime, anyone?

[hoosiermama]

BINGO

Magic trick. Look over here at the BC (which was conveniently made difficult to find) don’t look at my parentage

[Behind the Blue Wall]

He’s not an honorable man by refusing to deal with this issue in an honest and forthright manner. He was one of the top graduates of Harvard Law School; he therefore is well aware that this is not a “settled matter” and citing a naturalization statute from 1790, repealed in 1795, has no bearing whatsoever on the answer.

[lepton]

“Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth.”

---

Hmmm.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Naturalized is, by definition, the opposite of “natural born.”

[jwalsh07]

Wrong lefty. Cruz has never been naturalized because he is natural born. The only law coincident with the ratification of the Constitution that defined natural born was the first Naturalization Act. That is the definition of original intent pal. Subsequent laws never contemplated a redefinition because it was not controversial. Thanks act was changed to extend the amount of time one lived in the US before one could be naturalized. You find penunmbras in bs because you are a liberal.