“What about the OTHER legal experts and Constitutional law scholars who determine that he IS eligible? “
Go back to those people and ask them how they propose to make a naturalized U.S. citizen eligible for POTUS after the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark found such a child naturalized at birth is a naturalized citizen? Ted Cruz acquired his U.S. citizenship by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. You cannot be a naturalized U.S. citizen and a natural born U.S. citizen. you can only be one or the other, and the law quite clearly states Ted Cruz could acquire U.S. citizenship only by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. That makes Ted Cruz a naturalized U.S. citizen and ineligible for POTUS.
RE: The case of Wong Kim Ark
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, the Supreme Court noted, “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” With the terms undefined, INTENT is the proper method to determine the meaning of the terms.
Our constitution doesn’t specifically define “natural born citizen” but is framed in English common law in effect at the time, and under English common law the term “natural born citizen” is understood to be a citizen AT BIRTH.
In other words:
1) What was Cruz considered AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH?
2) Did he have to go through the naturalization process?
I believe the answer to #1 is American, and #2 is NO. He never had to APPLY for US citizenship.
Therefore, what was American Law at that time applies.
Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England, as amended by statute.
In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.”
Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic.
Blackstone’s commentaries was the most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357-58, 361-62
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance [sic], or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
However, Blackstone also recognizes natural born citizenship for subjects born abroad. English common law is comprised of precedents, court decisions, AS AMENDED by statutes.
Also, Although the Fourteenth amendment facially only deals with persons born within the territory of the United States, it establishes a break from the original intent of the Constitution.
The Amendment was written, in part, to ensure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 would not be struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress.
In addition to breaking away from the original intent of the Constitution the Fourteenth Amendment also contained the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause, in a nutshell, states that two individuals, otherwise identically situated, cannot be treated unequally on the basis of inalienable characteristics. Gender is an inalienable characteristic, and so the distinction between natural born status based on paternity versus maternity now fails Constitutional muster and Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen based upon being born to a US citizen mother.
You may be thinking the Fourteenth Amendment only holds true to the states and the federal government is not bound by the Amendment; therefore, Senator Cruz is still ineligible since the original intent holds.
I will concede that as a technical matter, this is correct. However, the eligibility is established through the Fifth Amendment.
Historically, the Equal Protection clause was frowned upon by the Supreme Court. However, in modern jurisprudence the federal government has been bound to the Equal Protection Clause via the Fifth Amendment.
For instance, In Bolling v Sharpe (347 U.S. 947) the Supreme Court stated, “the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The “equal protection of the laws” is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than “due process of law[.]”
As the Fifth Amendment binds the Equal Protection Clause to the federal government the discrimination of natural born citizenship based on paternity versus maternity would never survive a strict scrutiny analysis and Senator Cruz is eligible to run.
HAVING SAID THE ABOVE .....
Those who argue the issue is not settled are correct. The issue has NOT been definitively addressed by the courts, and technically could be a live dispute if someone with standing were to raise the issue. This brings us to the good of the country aspect. Who can raise a dispute? A voter cannot. Neither can a PAC or similarly situated organization.
However, it’s conceivable that a state party, or less likely a county party, could seek a declaratory judgment that allowing Senator Cruz on the ballot is proper. A state party has the obligation to ensure that the candidates on the ballot are eligible for the position they seek. Seeking to declare they can put Senator Cruz on the ballot is an easy way to resolve the issue. As the state party is acting to include the candidate the legal action would be friendly, with only the state party and Senator Cruz being able to present evidence. Or Senator Cruz himself could seek such a judgment.
Please note that I am NOT advocating for a county or state party to initiate such an action. The purpose of this entry is simply to explain why Senator Cruz is eligible to hold the office of President, to establish how he is, and give an avenue for how the question can be definitively settled.