Replies

-- His mother and father both became citizens of Canada before Ted was born. --

That can't be true. If it was, Ted would have zero claim to US citizenship.

I believe Mrs. Cruz was a US citizen, applied for residency in CA, maybe on a path to CA citizenship, maybe not, but no matter, she was a US citizen, resident of Canada when Ted was born. Father's status then becomes completely irrelevant.

Ted was able to get a US passport, and probably has a CRBA - his spokesman claimed to have one some time ago. CRBA or not, Cruz is a citizen of the US. The argument is a legal one over whether he is naturalized; essentially over the definition of the word "naturalized."

This is the most sensible and accommodative post I have seen from you, and I generally agree with your points.

And yes, this is the real sticking point, right here: The argument is a legal one over whether he is naturalized; essentially over the definition of the word "naturalized."

If indeed Ted Cruz is nothing more than a naturalized citizen, then he is not now and never can be eligible for the Presidency.

So, I ask, in the absence of the statue at issue, would Ted Cruz be a US Citizen by birth according to the operation of natural law?

According to Vattel, the answer must be yes, providing the citizenship was bequeathed to him by his father.

We need to consider that today, citizen mothers are equally entitled to bequeath their citizenship to their children as fathers.

And then, there is the question of whether the children born abroad out of wedlock would inherit citizenship naturally from the mother. I contend the child would do so.

I believe that the only argument is whether or not the Constitution requires that we slavishly hew to the 18th century insistence of patrilineage - even though it is not a part of the Constitution - or whether we can accept that mothers and fathers have the NATURAL and equal ability to bequeath their nationality to their offspring. And this is quite independent of any statute.

Here is Vattel on the subject:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

I must note that the construction of Vattel's second sentence does not require two citizen parents as is often asserted. The plural 'parents' follows the plural 'natives, or natural-born citizens' in the same manner as the sentence "All the children and their parents were present," does not require or imply that both parents of each child were present.

I must also object to any interpretation that forces us to deny the right of women to bequeath citizenship to their children on the same basis as men. This is not merely a present day social norm, it is required by the Constitution, and this has nothing whatever to do with original intent.

Even if Ted's mother had retained her American citizenship, the question has never been answered as to which parent "natural born" status emanates from, the father, the mother, or must it be both. Back in the days when the Constitution was created, it was the father's citizenship that received overriding consideration.

Now if the courts refuse to hear the case(s), as they did with Obama, then he gets a pass and is deemed eligible. However, it also means that the question of what the original intent of "natural born" actually means, remains unresolved.

Had Obama not come forth with an Hawaiian birth certificate, fake as it was, would the courts have remained silent on the subject? I suggest that the would not have. Of course we know that Cruz was not born in the United States. Will this fact compel the courts to take the case? At this point no one knows, which is why the challenges will be forth coming without a doubt. It is not a settled case as Ted Cruz and others currently claim.