Tom DeLay: Cruz Has Problem on Citizenship Issue

NewsMax ^ | 01/13/2016 | NewsMax

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told Newsmax TV on Wednesday that Ted Cruz might ultimately "end up in the courts" on the question of his citizenship and how it might affect his presidential campaign. "I've had this problem ever since Cruz announced," DeLay, the five-term Texas Republican who served from 2003 to 2005, told "The Steve Malzberg Show" in an interview.

"There is a difference between the definition of natural born and naturalization — and it has not been settled by any branch of government. "Cruz needs to address this in some way because it is a cloud right now in Iowa," DeLay said. [...]

DeLay, however, told Malzberg that the "most expedient" way for Cruz to settle any questions is to work through the courts. "You can't do anything through Congress," he said. "Congress isn't going to pass any bill to protect him — and I'm sure [President Barack] Obama wouldn’t sign anything. "He's going to the courts if he's the nominee. The Democrats will use every avenue available to them.

"They sued me over a valid issue," DeLay said, referring to a 2006 lawsuit brought by Democrats after he dropped his re-election bid. "They'll sue him. "He'll end up in the courts one way or another."

[editor-surveyor]

.
“Unless someone can produce naturalization paperwork that made him a citizen later in his life, he’s natural born”

This is the standard for every court that might get involved.

Nice try, no cigar.

[RummyChick]

Herbert Hoover gives precedent for the residency question.

His residency requirement was not consecutive.

Arab Prince graduated from Harvard. Assume 4 years. If he decides at any time to come back the clock will continue.

But you continue to miss the point.

Churchill was in line to be Duke until the then current Duke married a Vanderbilt for money. Shades of Downton Abbey. Vanderbilt had an heir and spare. His cousin inherited the Title. He was offered by the Queen the title of Duke. THAT HEIR COULD HAVE RUN FOR PRESIDENT because Vanderbilt was the mother.

It is perfectly plausible that a Duke or an Arab Prince be born to a US citizen. It isn’t that hard to establish residency. Said Arab Prince might only need another decade or so. I don’t know how long he lived in the US.

Those are two very real very plausible situations.

A Duke eligible and an Arab Prince.

That is what you are letting in the door with Cruz.

I absolutely believe James Madison would not want a Duke of Marlborough to run for POTUS

[Yosemitest]

Tom Delay is spewing the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" LIES !

As the article U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History The men who drafted the U.S. Constitution in the summer of 1788 realized that citizenship was bound to become an issue.
...Consequently, Article I, Section 8 of the new Constitution listed the powers given to the new Congress.
The third item on the list was the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization ... throughout the United States."
A year after the Constitution was adopted, Congress passed the first law that established a "uniform rule of naturalization": The Act of March 26, 1790.
The act was just the first in a series of laws addressing the issue of naturalization, ...

In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law. ...
In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again. ...
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.


Another article well worth anyone's time is

On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen",
MAR 11, 2015, Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement

... While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape,
at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.^15×
15. See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.
Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a "natural born Citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution.
Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a "natural born Citizen" even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.^16×
16. See Michael Dobbs, John McCain's Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM), http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html [http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].
Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President,
wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain's birth.^17×
17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).
Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain's candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord.
The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency,
resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was "inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the 'natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States,
as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term 'natural born Citizen.' "^18×
18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).
And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state.
Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party's presidential nominee in 1964,^19×
19. See Bart Barnes, Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm [http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL].
and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.^20×
20. See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure, N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html.

There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle.
The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.
Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues.
To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a "natural born Citizen."
Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve.
But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization.
And the phrase "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.
Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent - - whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone - - is a U.S. citizen from birth
and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.



---



* Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University.
** Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University; Partner, Bancroft PLLC.

[RummyChick]

Show me where the Founding Fathers would want a Duke - ranked right underneath the King - to run for POTUS

[Cboldt]

Your saying that, without any cite to authority, is just you saying that.

Your track record as a liar would lead any reasonable person to presume your contention is false.

[Thorliveshere]

I don’t think so. Reading his book, he’s a man about detail. He’s not that stupid to think he can sneak one by the Democrats.

[so_real]

Possible. It would require that the democrat party turns on Obama and throws him under the bus. If they argue Hawaii vs Canada, it would change the legal strategy. Suddenly the birth certificate Obama put on display, which the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department determined was a forgery, becomes part of discovery. Evidencing only that Obama *claimed* he was born in Hawaii isn't sufficient when the evidence supporting that claim doesn't pass muster. This opens a whole new can of worms for Obama and I'd be surprised if the democrats go there. Using a forged document to insure no one has standing to dethrone a sitting pres__ent, doesn't work so well to prevent another candidate from assuming the office. I think they'll continue do everything they can to deflect legal scrutiny of that document. Just my opinion ... after all, who can really understand the logic employed by liberals? ... not me.

[C. Edmund Wright]

just another jealous Texan....

[Fantasywriter]

Oh believe me, I’m with you that they’d not get anywhere near scrutiny of Obama’s BC. All I meant was a PR campaign. The Dems would simply saturate the airwaves with a Hawaii vs Canada mantra. But simply talking that point up relentlessly would not engender a court case re Obama. They would restrict legal challenges to Cruz aline.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Your long record as a troll would indicate that you are full of it.

[Dante3]

Tom wants to get his name mentioned in the media.

[Mr Rogers]

“Insomuch that the laws that pass citizenship in such cases are literally, often times, called “naturalization acts,” it’s you who doesn’t know law very well.”

Because EVERYTHING in a bill is determined by a title. Right.

The law defines what naturalization is. You ignore the definition, or do not know it, so you can spread lies.

[Fledermaus]

Tom is jumping the shark.

[BobL]

“DeLay, the five-term Texas Republican who served from 2003 to 2005”

I always like Dalay, but I’m still amazed that he managed to serve 5 terms in 2 years.

[Yosemitest]

Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE in Article I, Section 8 of the newConstitution ? l It list the powers given to the Congress.
The third item on the list IS the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization ... throughout the United States."
Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ?

Can you not READ and COMPREHEND typed writing ?

Now, show me WHERE that language addresses "Duke - ranked right underneath the King "!

Take a look at the original oner WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS, and VERIFY It FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



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

[RummyChick]

Then that means they decided their definition of NBC wasn’t good enough because they took it out.

[MamaTexan]

If Cruz isn't a natural born citizen, what do we say to the foreign-born children of diplomats or military folks?

Military personnel, like ambassadors and diplomats, may leave the country physically, but they never leave it politically because they are *in service* TO it. Their children are natural born.

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
Law of Nations Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Emmerich de Vattel, Book I, CHAP. XIX.

[Yosemitest]

NO.
They had established the definition, and they assumed that definition was OBVIOUS, and that no one could deny that definition.
But they could NOT predict JUST HOW STUPID the LEFT WOULD BECOME !

[RummyChick]

“They had established the definition, and they assumed that definition was OBVIOUS, and that no one could deny that definition”

You have absolutely nothing to base that on. The FACT is the law was repealed.

Jesus H Christ, you are ignorant of how the law works. 1790 WAS REPEALED. END OF STORY.

[Yosemitest]

You're the EVIL one, because you KNOW you're not telling the truth.
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED
except for the period of residency before naturalization.